Tyler Morrison

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty and knowing assistance, the defendants sought costs.

The Primary Defendants sought full indemnification pursuant to the plaintiff's corporate by-laws, while the Consultant Defendants sought full indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and self-dealing.

The court awarded the Primary Defendants full indemnification totaling over $9.4 million, finding no reason to depart from the by-laws.

The Consultant Defendants were awarded substantial indemnity costs of approximately $2.4 million, as the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing serious, unfounded allegations justified an elevated scale of costs.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit a former employee from accepting business from its clients.

The defendant admitted to forwarding confidential client information to her personal email before resigning to join a competitor.

While the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of employment obligations, it concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as existing court orders already restrained the misuse of confidential information and any potential loss of revenue could be quantified in damages.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendant.

The motion for further injunctive relief was dismissed.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for wrongful termination of a Consulting Agreement, and the defendant counterclaimed for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding no misrepresentation or reliance.

The court also dismissed the balance of the plaintiffs' claim, finding the defendant was entitled to terminate the Consulting Agreement due to the plaintiffs' wilful conduct harming business relationships through lack of forthrightness.

However, the plaintiffs were granted judgment for unreimbursed expenses.

The Kriesers appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for construction deficiencies and breach of fiduciary duty, and granted judgment to the respondents for outstanding invoices.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination that the Kriesers breached the contract by withholding payments, which disentitled them to warranty claims, and that there was insufficient evidence for the remaining deficiency claims.

The court also upheld the finding that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, and affirmed the trial judge's cost award.

The applicant sought to enforce a letter of request issued by a United States District Court to compel the respondent, an Ontario resident and former employee of a related company, to be examined under oath for use in a US proceeding.

The respondent and an intervener opposed the application, arguing the evidence was coerced, irrelevant, and enforcing the request would be contrary to public policy and unduly burdensome.

The court found that the statutory preconditions were met, the evidence was relevant and not otherwise obtainable, and enforcing the request was not contrary to public policy or unduly burdensome.

The application was granted.

Nobul Technologies Inc. brought a motion for a prospective order to restrain a former director, Michael Cappuccitti, from contravening a non-disparagement provision by communicating with shareholders.

Cappuccitti had sent emails to shareholders attaching his statement of claim in a separate action against Nobul, after Nobul refused to circulate it, despite having circulated its own statement of claim against Cappuccitti.

The court found that Cappuccitti's email was not disparaging, noting it was a cover note to circulate a statement of claim with a clear caveat that allegations were unproven.

The court emphasized shareholders' right to communicate and questioned Nobul's "clean hands" in seeking the injunction.

The motion was dismissed as there was no serious issue to be tried regarding a breach of the non-disparagement clause.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.