William Burden

The appellant brought a motion to remove counsel for two respondents based on allegations of misconduct in the underlying contempt proceedings.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the removal motion, finding no basis for the allegations and awarding full indemnity costs against the appellant.

The Court also dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that the appeal raised a non-frivolous legal issue regarding the appellant's ability to purge his contempt after the underlying action had been settled, which involved the liberty of the subject.

The vendor and purchaser of certain businesses disagreed on the method of calculating working capital adjustments under an asset purchase agreement.

An accounting firm, KPMG, was directed to calculate the adjustments according to approaches advocated by both parties.

The purchaser sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to make a payment based on KPMG's calculation, arguing KPMG exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that KPMG stayed within its mandate and its determination was final and binding.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application to require Goldcorp Inc. to obtain shareholder approval for a transaction with Glamis Gold Ltd. The appellant argued the transaction was an 'arrangement' under s. 182 of the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that s. 182 is facilitative, not mandatory, and that Goldcorp did not 'propose' an arrangement.

The court found the transaction was an issuance of shares and a vertical short-form amalgamation exempt from shareholder approval.

The appellant, a major shareholder of Financial Models Company, moved for a stay of a Commercial List decision and an injunction preventing other shareholders from tendering their shares to a competing take-over bid by Linedata Services S.A., pending an expedited appeal.

The motion judge had ruled that the appellant's acceptance of a sell offer was invalid under the Securities Act and that the other shareholders could include a 'superior proposal' condition.

The Court of Appeal granted the stay and injunction, finding that the balance of convenience favoured the appellant, who provided an undertaking as to damages, and ordered an expedited appeal.

The defendant's motion for leave to appeal an order permitting the plaintiff to use the pseudonym Jane Doe was dismissed.

The court subsequently received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought $10,998 plus disbursements on a partial indemnity scale, while the defendant argued costs should be fixed at no more than $2,500.

The court adjusted the hourly rates claimed by the plaintiff's counsel, noting that maximum rates were not appropriate for this type of case.

The court fixed the plaintiff's partial indemnity costs at $6,000 plus disbursements and GST.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal a discretionary costs judgment awarded after the case was removed from the trial list due to the plaintiffs' failure to produce relevant documents.

The court found that the costs order was amply supported by uncontradicted evidence and reflected a careful analysis of costs thrown away.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500.