Thomas G. Conway

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by S.D.M.O. Industries (Kohler-SDMO) and Kohler Co., who sought to stay proceedings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction or a forum selection clause favoring a French court.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction, the forum selection clause was not proven to be valid or applicable, and the motion judge made no reviewable error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs, representing Ottawa taxi plate holders and brokers, brought a class action against the City of Ottawa for its response to Uber's entry into the local market in 2014.

The court found that the City owed a duty of care to the taxi industry based on a long-standing, collaborative relationship and was negligent in failing to enforce its 2012 taxi by-law against Uber.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that the City's actions violated section 15 of the Charter or the Human Rights Code, finding no disproportionate discriminatory impact based on race or immigrant status.

The court also dismissed the claim that the City's taxi licensing fees constituted an unlawful tax, finding a reasonable nexus between the fees and the cost of services provided.

This appeal concerned the assessment of damages in a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The trial judge awarded the respondent (purchaser) damages for the increase in property value and 90% of all development expenses incurred since 2010.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, affirming the award for increased property value and wasted expenses, but erred by including expenses incurred under a prior joint venture agreement that had been released.

The Court held that only expenses incurred after the 2013 Agreement of Purchase and Sale were recoverable.

The calculation of rental costs as development expenses was upheld, but the amount was to be limited to the period of the 2013 APS.

The 10% discount applied by the trial judge was upheld.

The appellant, Salvatore Falsetto (father), appealed a trial decision that found substantial transfers of money and properties to his son, Salvatore Fillipo Falsetto (Sam), were gifts, not held in trust.

The trial judge also found no breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, or unjust enrichment by the son.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's factual findings that the transfers were gifts.

While the Court of Appeal found that the son was indeed a fiduciary, it concluded that he did not breach his fiduciary obligations because the transfers were made with the father's full knowledge and consent, and at his instruction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two appeals concerning a priority dispute over accelerated interest in closed mortgages and a costs order in a receivership.

The primary issue was whether the first mortgagee, First National Financial GP Corporation (FN), was entitled to future, unearned, accelerated interest upon the early discharge of its closed mortgages due to the mortgagors' default and court-ordered sale.

The court found that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a full contractual analysis of the mortgage provisions and by relying on a standalone common law entitlement to accelerated interest.

The Court of Appeal held that the mortgage terms explicitly provided for FN's entitlements upon default, which did not include accelerated interest.

The appeal regarding accelerated interest was allowed.

The appeal concerning the receiver's costs was dismissed, as the trial judge's discretion was properly exercised.

The Appellants sought an order to vacate Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) and a writ of seizure and sale registered against their properties, pending the determination of their appeals from a judgment and a CPL order.

They proposed paying the judgment amount into court as security to facilitate the sale of the properties to a third party.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that prior agreements required the full sale proceeds to be paid into court and that the Appellants had failed to disclose the sale agreement earlier.

The court found that the prior agreements contemplated a sale before the final determination of damages and that the Appellants' liability was now fixed by the judgment.

The motion was granted, allowing the CPLs and writ to be vacated upon the Appellants paying $1,750,000 into court as reasonable security, balancing the parties' interests.

Following the dismissal of Hockey Canada's motion to withdraw an affidavit and the vacating of its summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs for the motion and full indemnity for costs thrown away, totaling over $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed hours excessive due to duplication of work by multiple timekeepers and determined that some work done for the summary judgment motion could be repurposed for trial.

The court fixed the costs payable by Hockey Canada to the plaintiff at $25,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff father sued his defendant son and several of the son's companies, seeking the return of over $12 million in funds and properties transferred to the son between 2010 and 2015.

The father alleged that the properties were to be held in trust for him and his other children, and claimed breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the son successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust.

The court accepted the son's evidence, corroborated by independent witnesses and bank personnel, that the father had a clear donative intent and gifted the funds and properties to the son.

This decision addresses two motions: one by AIG Insurance Company of Canada for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Neil Doef, regarding a paralysis benefit claim, and another by Hockey Canada seeking leave to withdraw an affidavit and replace it.

The court dismissed AIG's summary judgment motion due to an unjustifiable 42-month delay in bringing it, finding it contrary to the principles of timely access to justice.

Hockey Canada's motion for leave to withdraw the affidavit was also dismissed, as granting it would have prejudiced the plaintiff by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants before the summary judgment motion, which was subsequently vacated.

The plaintiff sued for damages arising from the defendants' refusal to close a real estate transaction for commercial property intended for condominium development.

Liability for breach of contract was previously determined by summary judgment.

At trial to quantify damages, the plaintiff sought disgorgement of profits or, alternatively, expectation damages including reimbursement of development expenses.

The court declined to award gain-based restitution but awarded expectation damages to make the plaintiff whole, comprising the $323,000 difference between the purchase price and the land's value on the closing date, plus 90% of the plaintiff's out-of-pocket development expenses ($1,062,901).

The defendants' counterclaim was allowed in part for admitted debts and rent up to the date of breach.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim in an action alleging his son misappropriated funds using a power of attorney.

The defendants consented to some amendments, including removing a bank as a defendant, but opposed adding numerous new particulars of properties and transactions.

The court granted the unopposed amendments but denied the opposed ones, finding that adding unproven transactions to the pleading before entitlement to a tracing remedy was established would unnecessarily complicate and delay the trial, constituting an abuse of process.

The insurer brought an application to regularize a dysfunctional insurance appraisal process following a fire at a condominium construction project.

The insured brought a cross-application to terminate the appraisal process.

The court found that the appraisal process had become a 'procedural shipwreck' due to the joint and several fault of the umpire, the appraisers, and the lawyers for both parties.

The court dismissed the insurer's application and granted the insured's cross-application, permanently terminating the appraisal process and leaving the valuation of the loss to be determined in the concurrent court action.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application.

The respondent, The Kraft Heinz Company, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that they had made a more favourable offer to settle and that the applicant, The Corporation of the Township of South Stormont, had been less than fully candid.

The Township conceded costs but disputed the substantial indemnity scale, arguing the offer was not Rule 49 compliant and denying any sanctionable conduct.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the offer not sufficiently fixed or understandable for Rule 49.10 consequences and no conduct worthy of sanction.

The court also found the time claimed by both sides somewhat excessive and the hourly rates suggested by the respondent's counsel too high for the Ottawa region.

The applicant municipality sought an order to recommence an arbitration and appoint a new arbitrator to resolve a dispute over wastewater treatment costs.

The parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement that included a specific dispute resolution process for issues arising from data collection.

The court found that the current dispute regarding allegedly flawed data fell squarely within the contemplation of the settlement agreement.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was directed to the specific individual granted exclusive jurisdiction under the settlement.

The moving defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from a failed joint venture to develop LeBreton Flats.

The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, as its liabilities exceeded its assets.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient exigible assets, relying instead on future revenue streams which the court found inadequate.

The court concluded it was just to order security for costs, noting the moving defendants were minor players facing significant expenses and the plaintiff's controlling shareholder would otherwise be shielded from costs liability.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security in instalments.

The applicant mortgagee sought a declaration of entitlement to a yield maintenance payment (prepayment of future interest) following the sale of two mortgaged properties by a court-appointed receiver.

The respondent mortgagors and a second mortgagee opposed the claim, arguing the mortgages were opened by the receiver's actions, triggering the equity of redemption, and that the payment offended the anti-deprivation rule and the Interest Act.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the mortgages remained closed, the receiver's actions did not constitute a realization on the security, and the mortgagee was entitled at common law to the future interest to the end of the term.

The court declared the applicant entitled to $1,473,141.82.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a binding settlement agreement reached on May 17, 2019, to resolve an oppression remedy and wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants unilaterally modified a term regarding the share acquisition structure and failed to act in good faith.

The court found a legally binding agreement existed, which explicitly granted the defendants the prerogative to consider an alternative share acquisition structure and agree to it only if persuaded it was tax advantageous or neutral to them.

The court determined that the defendants had fulfilled their obligation by consulting their accountant and deciding against the alternative structure.

The court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding the settlement was reasonable and just.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to set aside or discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court had previously found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion for the certificate, but that the certificate would have been granted anyway.

The defendants argued against costs due to the disclosure failure.

The court reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge, citing divided success on the motion (plaintiff won on substantive issue, defendants won on disclosure finding), the reasonableness of the defendants' motion, the early stage of the action, and the potential for litigation conduct to be a factor at trial.

The parties were unable to resolve costs following a motion and cross-motion where the court stayed assessment orders pending the completion of a related negligence action.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $41,045.00.

The court determined that because the litigation is ongoing and the assessment is intertwined with the negligence action, the fairest result is for costs to be in the cause.

Costs for the motion and cross-motion were reserved for the trial judge.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion where the court stayed assessment orders pending a negligence action.

The applicant argued the granted relief was not sought, but the court clarified that a stay was requested by the respondent and affirmed its inherent power to stay proceedings under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that costs for the interlocutory motions should be "in the cause" and reserved for the trial judge, citing the intertwined nature of the issues with the negligence action and the many possible outcomes.