Warren A. Mouck

The plaintiff, a former General Manager, brought a summary judgment motion against his former employer for damages related to a notional Long-Term Incentive (LTI) award, moral/exemplary damages for bad faith conduct during termination, and moving expenses.

The court dismissed the claims for immediate vesting of the LTI award and moving expenses, and awarded moral damages for the employer's untruthful and misleading conduct prior to termination.

The issue of entitlement and quantum of the notional LTI award was deemed to require a mini-trial due to insufficient evidence.

The respondents, the declarant and project manager of a condominium, brought a motion to add the general contractor, Man-Shield, as a party to an application brought by the condominium corporation seeking as-built drawings under the Condominium Act, 1998.

Alternatively, the respondents sought to consolidate the application with a related construction deficiency action.

The court dismissed the motion to add the general contractor, finding no cause of action against it under the Act, which imposes obligations solely on the declarant.

The court also dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding the issues distinct and noting that consolidation would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and prejudice other parties.

The appellants sought a declaration that a 99-year lease registered against their property in 1972 was void, alleging it violated the Planning Act's subdivision prohibition.

The lease was entered into in 1968 between the respondent and the appellants' predecessor in title.

The application judge found that an oral lease agreement existed with part performance before the relevant statutory exemption was removed on May 2, 1968, thereby validating the lease.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: procedural fairness, lack of evidentiary support for part performance, and misapplication of the part performance test.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge denied procedural fairness by raising the oral lease and part performance issues only at the conclusion of argument and then refusing to permit the appellants to file further evidence to address these issues.

The appellant brought four related actions against various respondents arising from dealings that occurred primarily in the United States between 2001 and 2016.

The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the actions on the ground that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a real and substantial connection to the province.

The motion judges granted the motions and dismissed all actions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ontario jurisdiction existed based on: (1) consulting contracts allegedly entered into at Toronto airport; (2) products being advertised, marketed, and distributed in Ontario; and (3) respondents carrying on business in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and affirming that mere advertising or distribution through third-party retailers does not constitute carrying on business in the jurisdiction.