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.

The applicant sought a review of a decision by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) finding that he breached CIRO rules and imposing a registration ban, a $50,000 fine, and $10,000 in costs.

The applicant argued that the CIRO Panel denied him procedural fairness by refusing to admit his treating psychiatrist's medical opinion, denying his motion for an indefinite adjournment, and demonstrating bias.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the CIRO Panel did not err in law.

The Tribunal held that the psychiatrist's evidence was properly excluded as partisan advocacy, the applicant was fit to participate in the hearing, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal also upheld the CIRO Panel's findings on the merits and the sanctions imposed.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a sanctions order issued by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) pending a review application before the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The applicant also requested a confidential hearing and redactions to the adjudicative record due to sensitive mental health information.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as he had not been registered in the industry for over five years and provided no medical evidence that a stay would prevent harm to his health.

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality requests in part, ordering specific medical details redacted from the record while maintaining the public nature of the hearing transcript.

A portion of the applicant's brief referencing privileged settlement discussions was also struck.

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.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a construction lien action, seeking a determination that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied to their residential cost-plus construction contract and that the plaintiff breached the CPA by exceeding budget estimates by more than 10 percent.

The court granted the motion in part, declaring that the CPA applies to the contract and that it is a 'consumer agreement'.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the specific budget line items constituted 'estimates' under the CPA and whether the parties had agreed to amend those estimates during the project.

The defendants in a construction lien action sought leave under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.

The proposed motion would determine whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to the cost-plus construction contract and whether the plaintiff overbilled by exceeding statutory estimates.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature pending discovery.

The court granted leave, finding that determining the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act would likely expedite the resolution of the issues in dispute, even if some factual issues ultimately require a trial.

The applicant, a member of the Ocean Man First Nation, sought judicial review in the form of a writ of quo warranto to remove the chief and council from office.

She argued that the chief was suspended at a membership meeting and that the council had invalidly extended its term.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no legal basis or broad community consensus for the purported suspension, and that the council validly extended its term pursuant to the First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.