Terry Corsianos

Following earlier reasons on a motion, the court determined the issue of costs and related financial matters.

Although success on the motion was divided, the moving party succeeded against one defendant regarding recovery of a $90,000 refund.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 plus HST and certain disbursements against that defendant, while declining to order costs for other dismissed aspects of the motion.

The court also confirmed that $60,000 previously paid into court would remain there and declined to award prejudgment interest at a rate higher than that provided under the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for compensatory and punitive damages arising from an investment scheme.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract for failure to refund his investment, as well as fraud and conspiracy to defraud.

The court granted partial summary judgment against the corporate defendant for $90,000, finding a binding agreement to refund the 2007 investment.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment on the fraud and conspiracy claims, concluding that a full appreciation of the conflicting evidence and credibility issues required a trial.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a default judgment against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal declined to interfere with the decision to set aside the default judgment.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by failing to consider the prejudice to the appellant and failing to impose terms.

The Court varied the order to require the respondents to pay costs thrown away and pay funds into court pending trial.

The appellant tenant appealed the dismissal of its action on a motion for summary judgment regarding a commercial lease termination.

The tenant argued the landlord was not entitled to terminate the lease, failed to provide proper notice of default, and that a post-termination agreement was unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the security deposit was deficient, the notice of default was sufficient under the Commercial Tenancies Act, and the post-termination agreement was not unconscionable as there was no inequality of bargaining power or unfairness.

The plaintiff, a shareholder and creditor of a closely held corporation, brought an oppression action alleging that another shareholder and director misappropriated corporate funds.

The defendant moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were derivative in nature and required leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the claims were properly advanced under the oppression remedy in s. 248.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the overlap between derivative actions and oppression claims, particularly in closely held corporations where the risk of frivolous lawsuits is minimized.