Wilton-Siegel

The plaintiff, having been successful at trial and awarded over $11 million for civil fraud, sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $1.88 million inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The self-represented defendant argued the costs were unreasonable and should be apportioned among settling defendants.

The court considered the complexity of the action, the defendant's conduct in increasing costs, and the limited probative value of the receivership proceedings at trial.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendant at $1.05 million plus taxes for fees and $162,000 for disbursements.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff hospital network contracted with the corporate defendant to purchase 3 million NIOSH certified N95 masks, paying over $13 million upfront.

The corporate defendant, directed by the individual defendant Caridi, delivered KN95 masks instead, which were not NIOSH certified.

The plaintiff sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that Caridi acted recklessly in representing that the corporation could deliver NIOSH certified N95 masks without knowing if it was true.

While the court declined to pierce the corporate veil or grant an oppression remedy, it held Caridi personally liable in tort for deceit because his conduct exhibited a separate personal interest (a 50/50 profit split).

The corporate defendant was also found liable for breach of contract.

The applicant sought to enforce two arbitration awards totaling over $4 million against the respondent real estate developer.

Pending the hearing of the enforcement application and the respondent's application to set aside the awards for reasonable apprehension of bias, the applicant moved for a preservation order under Rule 45.01 or a Mareva injunction to prevent the respondent from dissipating its remaining assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 45.01 was inapplicable because the applicant claimed no property interest in the assets, and a Mareva injunction was unwarranted because the applicant failed to establish a real risk that the respondent would dissipate its assets to avoid judgment.

The applicant sought judgment for $7.45 million pursuant to a settlement agreement.

The respondent claimed a right of set-off for insurance deductibles under the construction contract's owner-controlled insurance policies.

The applicant argued that a release executed as part of the settlement extinguished the respondent's right to claim the deductibles.

The court interpreted the release in its factual matrix and concluded it was limited to the five specific disputes settled, and did not terminate the applicant's ongoing obligation to pay deductibles under the continuing contract.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, the former manager of the defendant investment fund, sued for fees and damages following the termination of its management agreement.

The defendant fund counterclaimed, alleging the manager was terminated for cause due to material breaches of the standard of care, particularly regarding its handling of the fund's liquidity crisis and its recommendation to enter into a high-interest loan rather than suspending redemptions.

The court found that the manager materially breached the standard of care, justifying the termination.

However, the fund's counterclaim for damages was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The manager was awarded certain unpaid fees accrued prior to termination.

The plaintiff, Brand Name Marketing Inc., brought an action against Rogers Communications Inc. for breach of a non-disclosure agreement and breach of confidence.

The plaintiff alleged that it provided confidential marketing concepts to Rogers regarding a 'Pink Phone program' and a 'Call for the Cure program', which involved affinity marketing with a breast cancer charity.

The plaintiff claimed that Rogers misused this information to launch its own 'Pink Razr campaign' and sought over $14 million in damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff could not enforce the NDA as it was not a party to it at the relevant time.

Furthermore, the court held that while certain financial projections were confidential, the general concept of a charitable donation tied to a product sale was public knowledge.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Rogers did not use the plaintiff's confidential information in designing or implementing the Pink Razr campaign, which was fundamentally different from the plaintiff's proposals.

The Minister of Revenue reassessed two trusts, the Herman Grad 2000 Family Trust and the Marya Grad Spousal Trust, for provincial taxes on the basis that they were resident in Ontario, not Alberta, during the 2006 to 2009 taxation years.

The trusts appealed, arguing their trustees resided in Alberta and exercised management and control there.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding that the central management and control of both trusts was actually exercised by the settlor and his financial advisor, both resident in Ontario, who directed the trusts' investment and distribution decisions.

The applicant and respondent are brothers who were involved in a website business directed toward immigrants from mainland China.

The applicant claimed that the business was operated as a partnership in which he held a 40% interest, or alternatively, that he was a 40% shareholder in the corporations owning the business, and sought dissolution or an oppression remedy.

The respondent cross-applied, seeking a declaration that he owned 85% of the shares and an order requiring the applicant to sell his 15% shareholding due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and oppression.

The court found that the applicant was an independent contractor, not a partner or employee, and dismissed his claims for partnership dissolution, wrongful dismissal, and oppression.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-application for a forced buyout of the applicant's shares, finding no breach of fiduciary duty or oppression by the applicant in his capacity as a director.

Both the application and cross-application were largely dismissed, save for some specific monetary accounting.

The moving party and respondent entered into a joint venture to develop condominiums.

After the moving party's family assets were frozen, he transferred his shares in the project companies to the respondent to allow the respondent to secure financing, executing a document styled as a 'trust agreement'.

The moving party later brought a motion seeking the return of the shares, arguing the agreement created a bare trust that could be collapsed under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the document was a contractual agreement rather than a trust, and that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier would not apply regardless because the moving party did not have absolute beneficial ownership of the shares.

The applicants sought costs following a motion for the production of documents.

Both parties claimed success on the motion.

The court found that the applicants were substantially more successful, as the respondent's principal position was that no disclosure should be ordered, forcing the applicants to bring the motion.

The court awarded the applicants costs fixed at $11,500 on an all-inclusive basis, reflecting a reduction for their lack of success on an alternative argument.

The applicant sought directions regarding the respondent corporation's failure to advance legal fees for his defence against U.S. criminal charges and Canadian extradition proceedings, pursuant to a prior court order and s. 124(2) of the CBCA.

The court held that the test for advancement is whether the expenses were thought prudent and appropriate in the good faith professional judgment of competent counsel, without second-guessing specific tactics.

The court ordered the advancement of most of the claimed legal fees, subject to a discount for duplication of effort, but denied advancement for certain investigator fees due to insufficient evidence of reasonableness.

The respondent's cross-motion seeking to impose prospective conditions and security requirements on future advances was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, former employees of the defendant, sought a determination of their entitlement to monies under a carried interest plan related to a private equity fund.

They argued that their entitlements should be calculated based on their points at the time of each distribution and that the award of additional points after their departure was unduly dilutive and contravened the plan.

The court found that the plan's terms, including subsequent letters agreed to by the plaintiffs, contemplated calculating entitlements based on total points at the end of the plan.

The court also held that the defendant had broad discretion to award points and did not contravene the plan by awarding points after the plaintiffs' departure to reward other participants for their contributions.