Tom Curry

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision of Brownstone J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide costs outlines, the court made no order as to costs.

The case involves a dispute between two brothers, Nickolas and George Georghiades, co-founders of a real estate business (LP).

Nickolas brought a motion seeking the appointment of an auditor, inspector, and monitor, and direct access to business information, alleging oppression and misappropriation of funds by George.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression due to George's control over information and the brothers' dysfunctional relationship.

The court ordered the appointment of an independent Monitor with a prescribed mandate to observe and report on the business's financial activities, in addition to an agreed-upon audit.

The request for a separate inspector/investigator and direct access was declined at this stage, with the possibility of revisiting if the Monitor's reports indicate ongoing difficulties.

No costs were awarded.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to reconsider a previous certification ruling that dismissed the action against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (MLF) in a class action alleging price-fixing.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify the action against MLF, presenting new evidence including a Second Information to Obtain (ITO), MLF's annual reports, Canada Bread's Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) from a criminal proceeding, and emails from Canada Bread's files.

MLF opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to exclude the new evidence and strike the Plaintiffs' amended claims.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the 'new evidence' was either not new, inadmissible hearsay, or did not substantively alter the lack of a viable cause of action against MLF.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation, stating that a certification dismissal for lack of cause of action is a final order and cannot be revisited without meeting a strict test for new evidence (Sagaz test), which was not met here.

The court also granted MLF's motion to exclude the evidence and strike the amended statements of claim against MLF.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

In a securities class action, the plaintiff sought multiple orders in advance of a settlement approval motion.

The plaintiff requested leave to proceed against Tetra Tech, Inc. under the Securities Act, leave to discontinue common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against Tetra Tech, and certification of the action as a class proceeding against Tetra Tech for settlement purposes.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought approval to discontinue the action against the Underwriter Defendants based on a Standstill and Tolling Agreement.

The court granted all requested orders, finding that the criteria for leave and certification were met and that the discontinuance against the Underwriter Defendants would not prejudice the class.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify the proceeding as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleges that the defendant improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets.

The court found that all certification criteria were met, relying on previous decisions in similar cases, and granted the certification order.

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

The respondent in an application regarding the interpretation of settlement agreements brought a motion to convert the application into an action and consolidate it with an existing 2018 action between the parties.

The underlying dispute involved a condominium development, easements, and construction on abutting properties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the discrete issues of contract interpretation could be resolved on a written record without viva voce evidence, and that delaying the application to be heard with the 2018 action would cause undue prejudice and delay to the construction project.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, commenced a civil action against her employer (the Crown) and her union (AMAPCEO) alleging discrimination and harassment arising from her employment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitration or the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) due to the collective agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the essential character of the dispute arose entirely from the employment relationship governed by the collective agreement, and the plaintiff's claims did not present an independent civil wrong to "piggyback" human rights claims in court.

The court affirmed that the HRTO remains an available forum for the plaintiff's human rights complaints.

The defendant physician brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims of the infant plaintiffs (triplets) for "wrongful life." The claims arose from the physician's alleged negligence in prescribing a fertility drug to the mother, leading to multiple births and premature delivery, resulting in the triplets' serious disabilities.

The court, applying established Ontario jurisprudence, found no duty of care owed by the physician to unconceived children, as the alleged negligence occurred prior to conception.

The motion was granted, and the infant plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without leave to amend.

In a medical negligence action concerning the birth of triplets with severe disabilities, the defendant Dr. Benzaquen brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the infant plaintiffs' "wrongful life" claims.

The plaintiffs argued the motion required a full evidentiary record and should be heard at trial.

The court determined that Rule 21 motions, which address questions of law on the pleadings, should generally be heard at the earliest date, prior to trial, to potentially dispose of claims or substantially shorten the trial.

The judge directed counsel to schedule the motion for October 2019 and confirmed a new trial date for March 2021, allowing for potential appeals of the motion decision before the lengthy trial.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that a reporting issuer and seven of its former officers and directors contravened Ontario securities law by making materially misleading disclosures regarding copper production and financial performance, failing to maintain adequate internal controls, and providing inadequate risk disclosure.

The respondents admitted to the contraventions and to conduct contrary to the public interest.

The Commission approved a settlement agreement requiring the corporate respondent to make a $28.5 million voluntary payment and pay $1.5 million in costs, while the individual respondents agreed to pay administrative penalties ranging from $350,000 to $2.45 million, pay $50,000 each in costs, and be subject to director and officer bans.

The Commission found the settlement fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering specific performance of an oral agreement to sell 100,000 shares of a private company to the respondent.

The appellant argued that no binding agreement was reached, that third-party approval was a condition precedent, and that specific performance was an inappropriate remedy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that an objective reasonable bystander would find the parties intended to contract based on securities industry custom.

The Court also upheld the specific performance order, noting the shares were unique and damages would be inadequate.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an enforceable settlement agreement had been concluded between the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge was justified in finding an agreement was reached and that the terms, including a cash payment for shares, were clear and undisputed by the appellant at the time.