William McLennan

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, the court reviewed the defendants' updated Costs Outline.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $17,542.69, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

Following a summary judgment motion regarding a defaulted home purchase, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff had claimed $887,915 in damages but recovered only $10,000, with the claim for carrying costs proceeding to trial.

The court found that the defendants were entirely successful on the carrying costs issue and successful overall on the motion.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity scale, directing them to submit a revised bill of costs.

The appellants, founders of International Capital Management Inc., sold their client portfolio to Optimize Inc. in 2017 through referral and non-competition agreements.

The agreements provided that Optimize would pay fees to ICM, but could demand repayment if more than 15% of the transferred assets were subsequently moved to entities associated with the Sanchez brothers.

When the appellants' associated firm, T.I.P. Wealth Manager Inc., received over 15% of the transferred assets, Optimize terminated the agreements and demanded repayment of all fees paid.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favor of Optimize, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the 15% threshold and characterizing the fee repayment clause as an enforceable forfeiture clause rather than an unenforceable penalty.

The appellants appealed, challenging both the summary judgment finding and the characterization of the remedy clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.

This costs endorsement follows the Court of Appeal’s decision allowing the appellants’ appeal in part.

The court found that the trial judge erred in requiring Mak Mera Limited to repay US$405,000 and in awarding $200,000 in defamation damages to James Bay Resources Limited.

The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal and, after submissions on trial costs, the court awarded the appellants $400,000 in trial costs, payable by James Bay, as a fair and proportionate amount in light of the appeal outcome and the parties’ relative success.

This appeal arose from a dispute between James Bay Resources Limited and Mak Mera Nigeria Limited regarding two agreements for oil and gas consulting services in Nigeria, as well as a claim for defamation.

The trial judge had ordered Mak Mera to repay US$405,000 in service fees, characterizing them as advances, and awarded James Bay $200,000 in defamation damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in her contract interpretation because the monetary payments were unconditional fees for services rendered, not repayable advances.

Additionally, the court reduced the defamation damages to a nominal award of $1,000 because the substantial award was unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Lori Gallant, who sought a court order to fix the rental rate for a renewed term of a commercial lease with Sherril Johnson and Fitzroy Johnson.

The court held that the lease’s renewal clause was merely an agreement to agree, providing no basis for the court to set a rental rate or imply a method for doing so.

The court also found no breach of good faith by the respondents in the rental negotiations.

The respondents were awarded costs.

This decision concerns two related shareholder applications under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving SpassMed Inc. and its affiliates.

The court reviews the procedural history, including consolidation of the applications, amendments to the relief sought, and the appointment of an interim monitor.

Due to significant disputes of fact and credibility, the court orders that the consolidated application be converted to an action to allow for a full trial process.

The Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their claim to add new causes of action and parties, including knowing assistance, knowing receipt, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and piercing the corporate veil, and to particularize allegations against a non-party and a discontinued defendant.

The GBRSAS Defendants opposed, arguing new causes of action were statute-barred and prejudice would result.

The court granted leave for most proposed amendments, finding they were alternative relief or different legal conclusions based on existing facts, or arose from the core factual matrix.

However, leave was denied for breach of contract claims against individual defendants, as these were new causes of action based on unpleaded facts and were statute-barred.

Leave was also denied to withdraw admissions regarding misrepresentations made by a settling defendant due to lack of reasonable explanation.

This appeal arose from two actions tried together concerning breaches of a license agreement and fiduciary duties related to powder-coating business ventures.

The trial judge found that Robert Langlois breached a License Agreement and fiduciary duties to the "ACS plaintiffs" (7868073 Canada Ltd. et al.), with Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisting.

Profits were disgorged to the ACS plaintiffs, and a separate action by Gary Sugar was dismissed as moot.

The appellants (Gary Sugar and the "Langlois appellants") challenged the trial judge's findings on the License Agreement's validity and termination, the existence and continuation of fiduciary duties, and the misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The ACS plaintiffs cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and denied leave to cross-appeal costs, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the License Agreement was valid and not terminated, that fiduciary duties continued, and that corporate opportunities were misappropriated.

James Bay Resources Limited, having been awarded damages for breach of contract and defamation in a prior decision, sought costs of $607,759.

The court awarded costs of $309,401.91 inclusive of HST against Mak Mera Limited only, making no costs award against Adewale Olorunsola due to divided success.

The court significantly reduced the requested costs, citing over-lawyering, lack of detail in the bill of costs, the applicant's conduct unnecessarily increasing litigation costs (e.g., late document production, issues with counsel retention leading to trial adjournment), and the disproportionality of the claimed costs to the damages awarded.

The court applied a 30% reduction to account for these factors and specific deductions for certain claimed expenses.

The plaintiff corporation sued its former Nigerian business partner and its principal arising from failed oil and gas ventures and a letter sent to Nigerian regulators and Shell after the relationship collapsed.

The court held that the parties’ written agreements made compensation contingent on successful acquisition and completion of an oil and gas asset, and implied a term requiring repayment of $405,000 advanced when no qualifying acquisition was completed.

The court further found the July 2014 letter defamatory, rejected the defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege, and held that malice was established through knowing or reckless misstatements made to exert commercial pressure.

Contractual repayment was ordered against the corporate defendant alone, while defamation damages of $200,000 were awarded jointly and severally against both defendants.

This appeal concerns a share-purchase transaction under a unanimous shareholders' agreement (USA) that went awry.

The appellants, Leeder Automotive Inc. and 2786818 Ontario Inc., sought to compel the respondent, Douglas Warwick, to sell his shares.

The application judge dismissed their application, finding that Leeder had repudiated the share-purchase agreement by failing to comply with the USA's valuation provisions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's finding of repudiation, although it corrected her legal error by clarifying that the share-purchase transaction constituted a standalone contract capable of repudiation, rather than merely an implementation of the USA.

The Court found that Leeder's failures to obtain an independent real estate appraisal and to prepare financial statements in accordance with GAAP, including the improper exclusion of a significant settlement, amounted to fundamental breaches, justifying the respondent's acceptance of repudiation.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses a motion concerning the authenticity of a photocopied letter that the defendants sought to introduce as an exhibit during cross-examination.

The plaintiff objected, arguing insufficient authentication.

The court, after a voir dire, clarified the low evidentiary threshold for admissibility, ruling that the witness's initial statement that the signature "appeared to be his" was sufficient to mark the document as an exhibit.

The ultimate determination of the letter's authenticity and weight was reserved for the trier of fact at the conclusion of the trial, emphasizing that authenticity disputes are best resolved at the case's end.

The plaintiff, James Bay Resources Limited, brought a motion for leave to introduce three previously undisclosed documents at trial, pursuant to Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants opposed the admission.

The court applied the updated discretionary Rule 53.08(1) test, which requires a reasonable explanation for the failure to disclose, no uncompensable prejudice to the opposing party, and no undue delay.

While the explanation of inadvertence was considered weak, the documents were highly relevant, and the defendants had conducted discovery on them without demonstrating actual prejudice or requesting an adjournment.

The court granted leave to admit the documents and awarded the defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, Bay-Yorkville Developments Ltd. (BYDL), brought a motion to consolidate its action against Ferguson-Neudorf Glass Inc. (FNG) with a pre-existing main action involving Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2282.

FNG opposed the consolidation and sought to schedule a summary judgment motion on limitations grounds.

The court granted the consolidation, finding that the actions shared common questions of law and fact, arose from the same transactions, and that consolidation would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and promote efficiency.

The court further ruled that FNG's summary judgment motion should be heard only after discoveries were completed, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive record in complex construction litigation.

The appellants, Sandeep Singh and 9660143 Canada Inc., appealed an order dismissing their third-party claim against The Nationwide Groups Ltd. The third-party claim alleged that Nationwide's appraisal undervalued a property, leading to a failed real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Nationwide did not owe the appellants a duty of care.

The court reasoned that there was no special relationship of proximity between Nationwide and the appellants, as Nationwide was retained by the buyer's lender, and the appellants did not plead reliance on Nationwide's appraisal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for failing to timely pay prior costs awards, or alternatively, for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The court declined to dismiss the action, noting the costs orders had since been paid and the plaintiff's conduct was not contumelious.

The court also dismissed the request for security for costs, finding the defendants failed to prove the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario and that the defendants' delay in bringing the motion rendered such an order unjust.

The plaintiff sought a two-year custodial sentence for the defendant, who was previously found liable for multiple acts of civil contempt, including transferring assets to put them beyond the court's jurisdiction and failing to disclose assets.

The defendant, who was already serving a 12-month sentence for prior contempt, requested a conditional sentence.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be a flagrant and repeated defiance of court orders, warranting a strong signal of deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was sentenced to 16 months in jail without the possibility of parole, with conditions allowing for early release if the contempt is purged.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated November 22, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicants sought a declaration that they were permitted to install solar panels on their home's roof despite a restrictive covenant requiring the developer's approval for any 'structures'.

The developer had demanded the removal of the partially installed solar panels.

The court found that while solar panels do constitute a 'structure' under the covenant, the covenant itself was unenforceable for uncertainty.

The provision gave the developer unfettered discretion to approve or reject structures without setting out any objective criteria.

Consequently, the applicants did not require the developer's approval to proceed with the installation.