T. Kerzner

The applicants moved for an order regarding post-closing issues following a court-approved sale of properties.

The respondents sought a payout on two mortgages that included a prepayment penalty for future interest loss.

The applicants argued the mortgages were self-dealing and should not include a prepayment penalty, as the original CMHC mortgages did not.

The court found that the mortgages did not contain a prepayment privilege and that the respondents were entitled to compensation for the loss resulting from the early vesting off title of the mortgages.

The court ruled in favour of the respondents.

The applicants moved for an order regarding post-closing issues following a court-approved sale of properties.

The respondents sought payout on two mortgages, including compensation for future interest loss, as the mortgages were vested off title prior to maturity.

The applicants objected, arguing the mortgages were self-dealing and should not include an unbargained pre-payment penalty.

The court found that the mortgages did not contain a pre-payment privilege and that the respondents did not breach any fiduciary duty in the refinancing.

The court ruled in favour of the respondents, ordering that they be compensated for future interest loss.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants submitted a Bill of Costs which the respondents consented to.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $13,293.91 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The court also directed an amendment to the reasons for judgment to add co-counsel for the respondents.

The respondent, a partner in an accounting firm, accepted a directorship with a corporate client of the firm.

While he disclosed the directorship and remitted his director's fees to the partnership, he failed to disclose his entitlement to shares and stock options under the client's key employee stock plan.

After the partnership dissolved, the appellants sought an accounting of these benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent breached his fiduciary duty and his statutory duty of disclosure under the Partnerships Act.

The court found that the shares and options were compensatory benefits derived from a transaction concerning the partnership and from the use of a partnership business connection.

The respondent was ordered to account to his former partners for their proportionate share of the benefits realized.