Vincent DeMarco

Following a trial on damages in a commercial dispute involving mall tenancy losses, the court issued supplementary reasons correcting calculation errors in the damages previously awarded.

The correction increased the total damages to $580,600.63 after identifying an arithmetic mistake relating to losses associated with inducing a replacement anchor tenant.

The parties jointly agreed to prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act at a rate of 2.8%, resulting in prejudgment interest of $352,973.37 to January 15, 2026.

The plaintiffs’ remaining claims for damages were dismissed.

Costs were left to be determined following written submissions.

The plaintiffs in this proposed class action sought production of documents from Patrick Sheridan, a non-party and former executive of Guyana Goldfields Inc., relating to alleged misrepresentations and governance failures at the company.

The court granted the motion for non-party production, finding the documents highly relevant to the core issues in the action and necessary for a fair adjudication of the leave and certification motions.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the motion was premature or a “fishing expedition,” emphasizing that the plaintiffs knew exactly what documents they sought and that Sheridan was uniquely positioned to provide them.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to remove Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP as counsel for the Defendants in a proposed investors' class action, citing conflicts of interest and allegations of professional misconduct stemming from Osler's extensive prior roles with the now-insolvent Wayland Group Corp. and its former directors.

The motion was adjourned because the Plaintiff's supplementary affidavit introduced serious new allegations and referenced potentially privileged documents received inadvertently.

The court ordered the Plaintiff to identify and describe the privileged documents in a new affidavit, allowing the Defendants to file supplementary materials and conduct cross-examinations.

The court emphasized the necessity of addressing privilege issues properly, despite the resulting delay and expense.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $4,000,000 settlement in a certified shareholder class action against the defendant.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks and arm's length negotiations.

The court also approved a $7,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel fees of $1,200,000 (30% of the settlement) plus taxes and disbursements, finding the fee appropriately reflected the risk assumed by counsel.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for validation of service of the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and motion record on a defendant in the Netherlands, for leave to issue a Further Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and for an extension of time to serve it.

The motion was opposed by affiliated defendants.

The court granted leave to amend the claim, finding no withdrawal of an admission.

The court also granted an extension of time for service, finding no prejudice to the foreign defendant and a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The request for validation of service was denied, as the motion record was properly served under the Rules and the Hague Convention, and the extension of time for the claim was granted nunc pro tunc.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking validation of service of their Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and motion record on Akzo Nobel N.V. (a Dutch company), leave to issue a Further Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and an extension of time to serve the Further Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim on Akzo Nobel N.V. Akzo Nobel N.V. did not oppose the motion, but its affiliates (the Akzo Affiliates) did.

The court granted leave to amend the claim and an extension of time for service, finding no prejudice to Akzo Nobel N.V. and a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The request for validation of service was dismissed, as the motion record was found to be properly served by mail under the Hague Convention and Rules, and validation of the statement of claim was inappropriate given the Hague Convention's complete code for service.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, CryptoStar Corp., sought an interim order for the preservation of specific funds (Upfront Payments) or assets purchased with them, and a declaration of interest in property to facilitate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) in Alberta.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Upfront Payments did not constitute a "specific fund" under Rule 45.02 as they were co-mingled and not contractually segregated.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried regarding the refund claim under the Agreement's terms and no basis for a CPL as the plaintiff failed to establish an interest in land.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court awarded costs to the respondents in the appeal (IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt), fixed at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

This decision followed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

This appeal concerned an insurer's duty to defend where the insurer alleged material misrepresentations and breach of policy conditions by the insured.

The insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, denied defence to IT Haven Inc. and Ryan Hunt against a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming the insured misrepresented their business operations in the insurance application.

The motion judge granted the duty to defend, refusing to consider extrinsic evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming the duty to defend.

The court applied a flexible approach, distinguishing this from a typical 'pleadings rule' case, and held that resolving the alleged misrepresentations would require determining contested factual issues central to the underlying litigation, which is inappropriate at the duty to defend stage.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and cross-motions in a family law dispute following a 2014 separation.

The court dismissed the Applicant's requests for an adjournment, a voice of the child report, a preservation order against the Respondent's assets, and further disclosure.

It also dismissed the Respondent's request for a further parenting assessment.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to increase temporary child support to $9,277 per month and temporary spousal support to $8,500 per month, based on the Respondent's averaged income of $750,000.

Retroactive support was left for trial.

A support deduction order was issued, and all other relief sought was dismissed.

The Respondent moved for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to facilitate its sale, offering a $600,000 equalization advance and an increase in temporary spousal support.

The Applicant resisted, citing the children's best interests and difficulty finding alternative accommodation.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, finding that the delay was not due to the Respondent's disclosure issues, that moving was inevitable for the children, and that the Applicant would be able to find suitable housing with the provided funds and support.