Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw ONTARIO CIVIL CASES Bankruptcy And Insolvency ARRANGEMENTS There was valid business purpose for proposed arrangement Magna sought approval of pro- posed arrangement pursuant to Business Corporations Act (Ont.). Th ere were three compo- nents of proposed arrangement. Arrangement was approved. Magna established compliance with statutory procedures. Re- quirements of interim order were satisfi ed in respect of giving notice of special meeting and conduct of meeting. Proposed arrangement was approved by requisite majori- ties of Magna shareholders and no objections were raised by op- posing shareholders on issue. Ap- plication was put forward in good faith. Th ere was valid business purpose for proposed arrange- ment. Magna satisfi ed fair and balanced test based on indicia including vote of Class A share- holders, notwithstanding court was unable to make own factual determination regarding fi nancial costs and benefi ts of proposed ar- rangement in manner urged on court by opposing shareholders. Magna also satisfi ed requirements of fair and reasonable test. Magna International Inc. (Re) (Aug. 17, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Wilton-Siegel J., File No. CV-10- 8738-00CL) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 26 (41 pp.). Civil Procedure DISCOVERY Appropriate to compel production of documents with employee's signature for handwriting analysis Motion by developer for order requiring contractor to produce documents with employee's origi- nal signature. Cross-motion by contractor for order requiring developer to produce documents relating to certain subdivisions. Developer apparently hired con- tractor to perform work for subdi- vision project. Contractor alleged there was no binding contract. Developer commenced action against contractor for damages for breach of contract. Contrac- tor brought counterclaim for un- specifi ed relief. Motion granted; cross-motion granted in part. Authenticity of employee's signa- ture was in issue so it was appro- priate to compel production of documents with her signature for handwriting analysis. Developer was entitled to select documents that it wished to inspect, particu- larly when it already had copies of those documents. Developer was only required to disclose docu- ments from other subdivision projects indicating amount of profi t per lot. Amount of profi t per lot earned by developer on similar projects was relevant to developer's claim of profi t per lot in this case. Contractor's request for other documents was far too broad. Ravenda Homes Ltd. v. 1372708 Ontario Inc. (Aug. 25, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Henderson J., File No. 5234/06) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 96 (12 pp.). Restriction on use of recording in court would ensure fairness Motion by defendant to compel plaintiff to attend for defence psychiatric medical examination without conditions. Plaintiff prepared to attend for psychiat- ric examination if proceedings videotaped. Plaintiff over time following motor vehicle accident began to develop symptoms in- dicative of brain injury in addi- tion to physical injuries. Plaintiff examined by psychiatrist at re- quest of family physician because of these symptoms but had not had psychiatric examination for purposes of litigation. Order that plaintiff attend for videotaped psychiatric examination. Order that plaintiff may not introduce recording in court nor use it for purpose of cross-examination of examining psychiatrist unless plaintiff had also obtained simi- larly recorded psychiatric exami- nation. Plaintiff had established he was suffi ciently unstable psy- chologically that his presentation on any given day could skew re- sults of examination. Videotap- ing would prove useful to set con- text for expert's conclusions thus promoting settlement. Prohibi- tion on use of recording in court OctOber 25, 2010 • Law times Subscribe to Law Times And receive: • Unlimited access to the Law Times digital editions and to our digital edition archives...FREE • Canadian Legal Newswire, a weekly e-newsletter from the editors of Law Times and Canadian Lawyer...FREE COURT DECISIONS earlug.indd 1 CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: 11/10/09 11:20:32 AM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. unless there were similarly re- corded plaintiff 's psychiatric ex- amination would ensure fairness. Playing fi eld would not be level should plaintiff choose to forgo psychiatric examination and go to trial on basis of opinions of treating medical professionals and clinical psychologist. Moroz v. Jenkins (Sep. 2, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Wood J., File No. 258/08) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 82 (4 pp.). Contracts DAMAGES Breaches were not cause of decline in sales and profits Plaintiff was granted summary judgment. Reference was direct- ed with respect to damages. De- fendant did not dispute $5,000 for disgorged profi ts on diverted sales. No loss was assessed for claim for overpayment of salary to Rempel. Plaintiff did not es- tablish Rempel failed in duties as general manager. No amount was allowed for loss of profi ts resulting from breaches of agreement. De- fendants breached terms of asset purchase agreement and employ- ment contract. Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations to plaintiff , but breaches were not cause of decline in sales and profi ts. Defendants continued to compete with plaintiff . Value of goodwill received was valued at $25,000 and loss to plaintiff was $75,000. General damages were fi xed at $30,000. Claim for punitive damages was dismissed. Damages awarded were more than enough to compensate for defendants' conduct. 1720608 Ontario Inc. v. Rempel Maximum Ice Services Inc. (Aug. 19, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Walters J., File No. 49869/08) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 148 (5 pp.). Family Law CHILD WELFARE Continued contact between children and father not in best interests of children Parties agreed children continued to be in need of protection. Chil- dren were special need children. Mother died. Society sought order for children to be made Crown wards without access. Father sought return of children. Father had new wife who had one child. Father was not able to meet many of conditions of supervision order. Relief requested by society was granted. Children suff ered physical and emotional harm by father as result of neglect and in- appropriate means of discipline. Th ere was risk father's conduct would continue regardless of any court order made. Father's plan of care was not in best interests of children. Continued contact between children and father was not in best interests of children. Access to children by father was to cease. It was in best interests of children to have continued con- tact with father's aunts. Father re- fused to co-operate with society. Court relied on hearsay evidence of children. Children's Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry v. Q. (P.) (Aug. 17, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Power J., File No. 07-1512) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 172 (47 pp.). PROPERTY Respondent's estate ordered to return amounts respondent wrongfully removed from bank accounts and wrongfully charged to applicant's credit card Parties went through religious but not legal marriage. Respondent was married to someone else. Par- ties lived together for one month per year for three years. Appli- cant was diagnosed with cancer. Respondent took $87,000 from applicant's bank account, cleared out joint safety deposit box and informed respondent's family marriage was over. Respondent died. Respondent's estate sought return of money, contents of safe- ty deposit box and 99% interest in home transferred to respon- dent during marriage. Respon- dent's estate ordered to return $27,000 which was $24,000 respondent wrongfully removed from bank accounts for support and $3,191 respondent wrong- fully charged applicant's credit card after respondent made deci- sion to separate from applicant. Registered ownership was not to be disturbed. Respondent showed applicant agreed to pay $60,000 for marrying applicant. It was not established what was wrong- fully removed from safety deposit box. Evidence about 99% inter- est in home established it was gift rather than resulting trust. Th ere was no evidence about remain- ing 1% cent interest that justifi ed fi nding it was held in trust for re- spondent. Rashid v. Shaher (Aug. 11, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Wildman J., File No. FC-08-029500-00) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 223 (41 pp.). Employment WRONGFUL DISMISSAL Plaintiff's resignation was clear, unequivocal, and voluntary Plaintiff worked for defendant for eight years. Plaintiff claimed plaintiff was fi red without no- tice. Defendant claimed plaintiff quit without notice. Both par- ties sought damages. President of defendant check plaintiff 's work and questioned plaintiff on how plaintiff was doing job. Plaintiff suggested president did not like plaintiff 's work. President con- fi rmed president did not like mistakes. Plaintiff became upset and quit. Plaintiff 's claim was dis- missed. Plaintiff failed to prove plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff 's resignation was clear, unequivocal and voluntary. Plaintiff did not attempt to resile from declaration to quit. Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed. Plaintiff 's resigna- tion did not cause any loss to de- fendant. Gill v. A & D Precision Ltd. (Aug. 25, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Fuerst J., File No. CV-07-084760 SR) 192 A.C.W.S. (3d) 160 (15 pp.). FEDERAL COURT Immigration REFUGEE STATUS Denial of refugee protection was not reasonable Applicant was denied refugee protection on grounds appli- cant's story was not credible, had internal fl ight alternative, and did not objectively or sub- jectively fear for life as shown by applicant's delay in making refu- gee claim. Application for judi- cial review was allowed. Board 2010 CANADIAN LAW LIST Your instant connection to Canada's legal network, available in print, online and CD Rom For a 30-day, no risk evaluation call 1.800.565.6967 www.canadalawbook.ca • www.canadianlawlist.com Canada Law Book, a Thomson Reuters business • Prices subject to change without notice. www.lawtimesnews.com CLL - 1/8pg. 5X.indd 1 10/13/10 2:16:22 PM Includes a FREE digital edition! Go to: www.lawtimesnews.com

• Cover
• New ID
• Financial Recovery
• Focus On Trusts & Estates