Thomas Arndt

The parties brought cross-motions regarding refusals and undertakings from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff sought to compel answers from the defendants and the Attorney General, while the Attorney General sought to compel answers from the plaintiff, clarify the scope of the pleadings, and obtain foundational information for the plaintiff's expert report.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce a refused sales graph, amend its pleadings to clarify the temporal scope and damages claim, and provide the foundational information for its expert report.

The plaintiff's motion against the Attorney General was dismissed, as the court found the undertaking regarding correspondence with U.S. regulators was adequately answered.

The appellants appealed orders of the trial judge finding fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionability in relation to three shareholders' agreements.

The appellants argued that rescission was only justified for the first agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the fraudulent misrepresentation justified rescission of all three agreements, and alternatively, that the second and third agreements were unconscionable and therefore also subject to rescission.

The court also rejected arguments regarding contract interpretation and procedural fairness.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff recovered her deposit on a failed condominium purchase, the plaintiff sought costs of $483,236 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff's Rule 49 offers did not contain a clear, understandable compromise, disentitling her to substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court noted the plaintiff's scattergun approach, unnecessary proceedings, and excessive billing.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $225,000, reflecting a fair and reasonable amount the defendant could expect to pay.

Following the respondents’ successful defence of a motion for injunctive and related relief, the court was required to fix costs after the parties failed to agree.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $114,000, alleging that the applicants’ conduct was reprehensible and that a settlement offer justified enhanced costs under Rule 49.

The court held that the settlement offer was not timely and that the applicants’ conduct did not meet the high threshold for substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court concluded the motion was relatively straightforward and that the respondents’ use of multiple counsel was unnecessary.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, HST, and earlier costs awarded in the cause.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff’s claim under s. 9 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 and s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the consulting agreement was an unlicensed real estate brokerage commission relating to the sale of a physiotherapy business.

The plaintiff asserted the transaction primarily involved the transfer of OHIP licences rather than the sale of a business.

The court held the characterization of the transaction involved disputed facts and mixed elements potentially inside and outside REBBA.

Because the applicability of REBBA was not clear and the evidentiary record was incomplete, a discretionary stay would be inappropriate.

The alternative argument that the claim was premature was also rejected.