Timothy M. Morgan

The plaintiff, ID Inc., and the defendants, Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp., sought costs following a trial.

ID Inc. was awarded damages against TWPA and sought partial indemnity costs for the trial and substantial indemnity costs for an interest motion.

StrategyCorp., whose claim was dismissed, sought full indemnity costs against ID Inc. The court awarded ID Inc. partial indemnity costs of $641,891.66 against TWPA, with reductions for certain disbursements and a 15% reduction for divided success on issues.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs for the interest motion, awarding partial indemnity instead, with further reductions for excessive time and unnecessary attendance.

StrategyCorp. was awarded partial indemnity costs of $665,354.31 against ID Inc., with reductions for time spent on an unscheduled summary judgment motion and a separate OIC complaint.

The court declined to award costs against ID Inc.'s principal personally or to direct TWPA's payment to ID Inc. to first satisfy StrategyCorp.'s costs.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sought pre- and post-judgment interest at a contractual rate of 26.8% per annum following a successful breach of contract claim against Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA).

The court had previously awarded damages for lost profits and maintenance.

The key issues were whether ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate without amending its pleading, and if an amendment was necessary, whether leave should be granted.

The court found that ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate under common law, as the parties had agreed to and contemplated this rate in their Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA), and the TWPA was not prejudiced despite the delay in formally pleading it.

The court awarded ID Inc. pre- and post-judgment interest at 26.8% on the total damages.

The applicant, Micheline Boutin, brought a motion to transfer and consolidate a civil proceeding commenced by the respondent, Victor Boutin, and his companies in Toronto with an existing family law proceeding in Brampton.

The Toronto proceeding alleged improvident sale of properties by the applicant, an issue previously addressed by the court as an adjustment to equalization in the family law case.

The court found that the Toronto proceeding's venue choice was unreasonable and that consolidation was desirable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, promote expeditious resolution, and prevent inconsistent findings, given the substantial factual and legal overlap between the two cases.

This decision addresses multiple motions in a contentious family law dispute marked by the respondent husband's persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure and preservation orders.

The husband sought to vary existing preservation orders, obtain updated financial statements from the applicant wife, and release funds from a Receiver.

The wife sought orders compelling the husband's compliance with prior orders, the release of funds for property expenses, and further disclosure.

The court dismissed the husband's motion in its entirety, citing his long history of deliberate disregard for court orders, including unauthorized asset transfers and a lack of complete financial transparency.

The court granted the wife's urgent motion, ordering the husband to remit proceeds from an undisclosed property sale to the Receiver and directing the Receiver to obtain the relevant legal file.

Additionally, the court ordered the release of $180,000 from the Receiver's trust to the wife for the payment of outstanding expenses related to the matrimonial home and other jointly-owned properties.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sued the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp for breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and conspiracy regarding a project to convert a static billboard at the Ontario Food Terminal to a digital sign.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement for a share of advertising revenue and a written Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA).

The court found no oral agreement existed but held that the TWPA breached the SMA and its duty of good faith by waiving a 360-day permit condition and then secretly contracting with a competitor.

Claims against StrategyCorp for interference, conspiracy, and breach of confidence were dismissed.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits on the construction and maintenance of the sign.

This is a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and therefore not properly before the Court of Appeal.

The motion judge had dismissed a motion to strike out claims for declaratory relief, holding that it was not plain and obvious the causes of action had no merit and were properly pleaded.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge's order did not finally determine any issues between the parties, leaving them for the trial judge, and was thus interlocutory.

The Court concluded that only the Divisional Court had jurisdiction over such an order and quashed the appeal, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the moving parties.

The defendant, Broccolini Construction (Toronto) Inc., brought a motion to strike various paragraphs of the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim filed by Urban Mechanical Contracting Ltd. The motion was based on the argument that the impugned paragraphs constituted an abuse of process by attempting to relitigate issues previously determined by Sossin J. The court reviewed Sossin J.'s prior decision, which had limited Urban's claims to those within a specific "Delay Claim" carved out of a settlement agreement, excluding tort and unjust enrichment claims against Broccolini.

The motion to strike was partially granted, with specific references to negligence and unjust enrichment claims being struck without leave to amend, as they were found to be an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed from an order for sale under the Partition Act.

The Court of Appeal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from orders under the Partition Act lie to the Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant, an equitable receiver for a creditor, sought an order for the judicial sale of a matrimonial home under the Partition Act to satisfy outstanding costs orders against one of the co-owners.

The respondents opposed, arguing the receiver lacked standing and that a sale would be oppressive to the innocent co-owner.

The court held that an equitable receiver, when authorized, has standing to bring such an application, distinguishing it from an execution creditor.

The court exercised its discretion to order the sale, finding that the inconvenience to the co-owner was insufficient to outweigh the creditor's right to collect, especially given the substantial equity in the property.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike a negligence claim without leave to amend.

The respondent, a lawyer acting as a notary, had notarized an affidavit containing allegations against the appellant.

The affidavit was subsequently published in a newspaper article.

The appellant's original defamation claim was statute-barred, so he amended to allege negligence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that no duty of care existed between the appellant and respondent.

The court held that a lawyer does not owe a duty to third parties to verify the accuracy of affidavit contents, and there was insufficient proximity between the parties to ground a duty of care.

The moving defendants, subtenants of a medical facility, sought summary judgment to dismiss claims by the landlord for breach of contract and unlawful act conspiracy after they vacated the premises.

The landlord alleged the subtenants breached continuous operation covenants and conspired to harm the landlord by moving to new premises.

The court granted the landlord's motion to amend its claim to add two corporate subtenants.

However, the court found no privity of contract between the landlord and subtenants, and no applicable exception to the privity doctrine.

Furthermore, the court determined there was no evidence of unlawful conduct or intent directed towards the landlord to support the conspiracy claim.

Consequently, the subtenants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the landlord's claims against them were dismissed.

The plaintiffs, including Romijay Enterprises Ltd., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, led by 11 Yorkville Partners Inc., from holding a unit owner meeting to approve the sale of their condominium property.

The defendants, owning over 80% of the units, intended to sell the property to a non-arm's-length purchaser for redevelopment, relying on section 124(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The plaintiffs invoked the oppression remedy under section 135 of the Act, arguing that the forced sale of their unit, which held significant personal and emotional value to its controlling mind, Robert Berman, constituted oppressive conduct.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiffs' reasonable expectation that their unit would not be sold to a non-arm's-length purchaser without their consent, that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the unit's unique value, and that the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo.