Terekhov v. Khozan has been a singularly interesting journey. In the last motion she heard before her well-deserved retirement, Master Haberman granted our client’s motion for security for costs and awarded our client substantial indemnity costs of the motion: 2016 ONSC 7080 and accompanying cost endorsement. Our client’s opponents fared no better on a related appeal to a Superior Court Judge: 2016 ONSC 6845.
The arbitral awards deal with issues of fraudulent concealment in the context of a failure to fulfill promises: Interim Award, Final Award.
Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Computer Room Services Corporation 2015, (2015 ONSC 610) Here, our client was successful in this trial decision concerning an interesting variation on the principles of bid shopping within the tendering process.
Harrowand S.I. v. DeWind Turbines Ltd., (2014 ONSC 2014) Here the court accepted our submissions concerning the applicability of recent Supreme Court authority to support the assumption of jurisdiction by Ontario courts despite the fact that no party resided in Ontario.
Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., (2014 ONCA 419) Here we were successful in overturning a jury verdict in a substantial wrongful dismissal action.
Cuthbertson v. Rasouli (2013, Supreme Court of Canada) Our client’s doctors claimed that they needed no court order or any other consent to withdraw life support and in that way end our client’s life. We obtained an injunction from the Superior Court restraining the doctors. The doctors unsuccessfully appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, and thereafter our clients were successful in the Supreme Court of Canada.
McCarthy Tétrault LLP v. Guberman, (2012 ONCA 679) Here, the Court of Appeal allowed our client’s appeal from an order dismissing his motion for an order that he be able to assess his lawyer’s accounts.
Henricks-Hunter v. 814888 Ontario Inc. (Phoenix Concert Theatre), (2012 ONCA 496) The OCA allowed our client’s appeal and required the reasonableness of a contingency fee arrangement to be considered by the court below.
Ma v. Ma (2012, ONCA 408) Here the Court of Appeal overturned rulings in both the Divisional Court and the Superior Court and held that an oppression action under the Business Corporations Act is assignable.
Lysko v. Braley (2010, Ont. Master) Six sets of defendants sought security for costs exceeding $2.8 million. They said the plaintiff was not impecunious since the notion of impecuniosity was a type of “litigation food stamps” reserved for the poor and destitute. The court rejected all of the defendants’ arguments. The court held (1) that the defendants’ position flies in the face of the central position of rule 56.01(1), which is that the court should make such order as is just and (2) that the plaintiff’s claims met the applicable standard on the merits. The appropriate order was, as submitted by the plaintiff, that he “pay what he can” as security. Nevertheless, the defendants claimed to have won the motions. The court rejected that, as well, and issued reasons ordering them to pay costs of the motion in the amount of $80,000.00.
Combined Air v. Flesch, (2010, Ont. C. A.) A judge of the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that no security for costs should be posted on the basis that a respondent took only a minor role in the appeal.
Neiman v. Duffmits Holdings Inc., (2010) ONSC 4643 Here the court accepted our clients’ position that licensing requirements of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act should not prevent their claims from proceeding.
Inforica Inc. v. CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc. (2009) (Ont. C.A.) Here, we submitted to the Court of Appeal that the court had no jurisdiction to rule whether or not the judge below had jurisdiction to rule whether or not the arbitrator had jurisdiction. The Court responded that it had jurisdiction and applied it to rule that the application judge had no jurisdiction to rule on jurisdiction.
Harrowand S.L. v. DeWind Turbines Ltd. (2008), CanLII 73536 (Ont. S. C.). In this case we successfully defended the jurisdiction of Ontario courts over a substantial multi-jurisdictional contract claim.
Lysko v. Braley, (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 721 (Ont. C. A.). The client here is the former commissioner of the Canadian Football League, Michael Lysko. We were successful on his behalf in restoring a number of claims dismissed at first instance. The Court of Appeal made some significant pronouncements concerning the law of negligent misrepresentation and defamation in the employment context. The case has been cited subsequently over 40 times in Canadian jurisprudence.
Lo Faso v. Kelton & Ferracuti Consultants Limited, (2004) 3 C.P.C. (6th) 368 (C.A.). Here the court allowed our client’s appeal and agreed that he was entitled, as an execution creditor of a dissolved corporation, to sue upon a claim which had been the property of the corporation prior to dissolution.
Ward-Price v. Mariners Haven Inc. (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 664 (S.C.J.) – In this case the court confirmed the right of our clients, as members of a plaintiff class, to received legal advice from us when they were deciding whether or not to opt out of the Class Proceeding.
Ontario (Real Estate & Business Brokers Act, Director) v. NRS Mississauga Inc. (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.) – This decision of the Court of Appeal clarified the relationship between trust claimants and security holders in an insolvency situation.
Fox Estate v. Stelmaszyk (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 846 (C.A.) – This case clarified the nature of a court’s discretion in enforcing accepted offers to settle.
Ward-Price v. Mariners Haven Inc. (2002), 36 C.P.C. (5th) 189 (Ont.Sup.Ct.) – Here the Superior Court certified our client’s claim as a Class Proceeding.
MR v. Christian and Timbers, Inc. (2002), 18 C.C.E.L. (3d) 165 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) – This interesting matter concerned a Defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings based on an arbitration provision in an impugned employment agreement.
Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd. v. Ontario (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.) – In this case, the Court of Appeal reversed a trial decision and expanded on an earlier decision so as to apply judicial discretion to cause of action estoppel, relating to the bringing of a new action to enforce a judgment against parties who were not parties to the original action. The decision also represents the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the doctrine of common employer, something which courts in Western Canada have been developing for some time. In the area of corporate law, this decision represents the first time the Court of Appeal has declared that is not necessary for a creditor, to assert an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, to show that directors or shareholders intended to prevent the creditor from being paid. Proof of a creditor’s reasonable expectation is sufficient.
Ward-Price v. Mariners Haven Inc. (2001), 199 D.L.R. (4th) 68 (Ont. C.A.), 57 O.R. (3d) 410 (C.A.) – This Class Proceeding included claims for knowing assistance and knowing receipt in respect to a breach of trust. On motion, the court held that the underlying duties owed were not trust duties. On appeal, this decision was reversed in favour of the client.
Duncan (Litigation guardian of) v. Neptunia Corp. (2001), 58 O.R. (3d) 754 (S.C.J.) – In this case, the court dismissed a motion brought by a Defendant who sought to prohibit our client from bringing an action in Ontario.
Midtown Wines Inc. v. Mogg Enterprises Inc.,  O.J. No. 8 and 167 – This case represents the first time in Ontario that the holder of a General Security Agreement was able to avoid the cost of a court-appointed receiver by obtaining an injunction restraining the debtor corporation from interfering with the exercise of the creditor’s right to appoint a private receiver.
Albrecht v. Sokol (2001), 42 R.P.R. (3d) 101 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) – Court resolved this interesting fact situation on a Vendors and Purchasers application in favour of the client.
Robinson v. Daewoo Canada Ltd.  O.J. No. 3591 (S.C.J.) – This multifaceted case concerns a number of interesting issues having to do with the enforcement of an 11 million dollar judgment arising from the breach of a computer manufacturing contract. The client was unsuccessful on a summary judgment motion, and this adverse decision was upheld on appeal.
Ciano v. York University  O.J. No. 3482 (Ont.C.A.) – This was a class action in which the representative Plaintiff sought to recover university tuition fees corresponding to the period of time that the Defendant York University faculty was on strike. While acknowledging that Mr. Ciano was not able to attend all of the classes that he contracted for, the Court nevertheless dismissed this claim. At first instance, the Honourable Mr. Justice Winkler awarded $30,000.00 in costs against the representative Plaintiff before bringing the action. While upholding the dismissal of the action, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the matter entailed a novel point of law and ordered that the Plaintiff need not pay any costs.
G.K. v. D.K. (1999), 38 C.P.C. (4th) 83 (Ont. C. A.) affirming (1997) 35 O.T.C. 319 (Gen. Div.) – This was a significant case dealing with appellate review of instructions to a civil jury. The client had been awarded significant damages for breach of fiduciary duty after a lengthy trial, and the award was upheld on appeal. Further application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.
Xerox Canada Ltd. v. Ontario (Director of Employment Standards) (1999), 47 C.C.E.L. (2d) 199 (Ont. Div. Ct.), the majority decision of the Divisional Court in this case distinguished some recent appellate cases in which sexual harassment had been found to be just cause for dismissal. Given the strident dissenting reasons of one judge of the panel, this case likely represents an important dividing line on this issue. Again, the client recovered a significant award.
Szecket v. Huang (1998), 42 O.R. (3d) 400 (C.A.) – This case is another notable victory. In it, the Court of Appeal set out the conditions in which it would be prepared to adopt and apply the dissenting reasons given in a decision of another panel of the same court. The case concerned pre-incorporation contracts, and the clients were awarded approximately $1 million. The decision was upheld on appeal.
Budd v. Bath Creations Inc.  O.J. No. 5468 (Gen. Div.) – Damages in lieu of notice for 16 months were awarded to the client who had been employed two months following the sale of a business in which he had previously been employed for seven and a half years as a chartered accountant and business manager. The notice period was extended because of a non-competition agreement affecting the availability of the Plaintiff to obtain similar employment. The period was further extended because the employer had been less than forthright and candid about the Plaintiff’s prospects.
Horth v. Slokker Canada Corp.  O.J. No. 4151 (C.A.) – Here, on appeal, the client successfully overturned an adverse judgment against it arising from a building contract.
Ruggeberg v. Bancomer, S.A. (1998), 53 O.T.C. 350 (Gen. Div.), aff’d (1999) 122 O.A.C. 310 (C.A.), leave denied  S.C.C.A. No. 289. The client’s action was stayed on a forum conveniens motion.
Gillespie v. Retail Merchant’s Assn. of Canada (Ontario) Inc. (1997), 33 B.L.R. (2d) 307 (Ont. Gen. Div.) – This matter concerned an application to the Court for surrender of a share certificate.
358426 Ontario Ltd. v. Liappas (Trustee of)  O.J. No. 4962 (C.A.) – This was a solicitor’s negligence case in which the client was unsuccessful on appeal.
Windisman v. Toronto College Park Ltd. (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 29 (Gen.Div.) – This was the first class action brought to trial in Ontario under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. The Plaintiff class obtained a judgment at trial, inclusive of interest and cost, of approximately $2.9 million.
Windisman v. Toronto College Park Ltd. (1996), 3 C.P.C. (4th) 369 (Ont.Gen.Div.) – This subsequent procedural decision in the Windisman matter established several important principles concerning fees and costs in class actions. The Defendant was ordered to pay approximately $250,000.00 in costs.
Payne v. Carr (1996), 20 O.T.C. 289 (Gen. Div.), aff’d (2000) 133 O.A.C. 167 (C.A.) – Disappointingly, the client, whose former solicitor admitted his failure to give proper advice, obtained no recovery.
Geo. Cluthe Manufacturing Co. v. ZTW Properties Inc. (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 70 (Div.Ct.) – This case marked the first time that the Advocates Society retained counsel and sought intervenor status in a matter before the courts. It concerned the rights of a plaintiff to bring action against a defendant’s solicitor based on advice given by that solicitor to the defendant. The client’s appeal was allowed in part.
Ontario Hydro v. Endacom 2000 Inc. (1995), C.B.R. (3d) 1985 (Ont. Gen. Div.) – This case concerned the seizure of assets under a debenture.
Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. Carlyle Residences (II) Inc.  O.J. No. 1596 (Gen. Div.) – This case concerned the procedural obligations of a non-party.
ZTW Properties Inc. v. 799374 Ontario Ltd.  O.J. No. 2536 (Gen. Div.) – Here the client successfully opposed a summary judgment motion.