Our Legal Team

Recent Cases

• VPC Inc. v. Transcity Logistics Inc. (and others), (Unreported: July 20, 2023) (Ont.S.C.J.)
  

  Whelton Hiutin LLP lawyers Richard Macklin, Wei Jiang, and articling students Arlene Campbell and Shae Lynn Chung were recently successful in setting aside Mareva and CPL orders obtained in a commercial dispute. The orders at issue were wide-reaching orders freezing bank accounts and preventing the sale of property. The Court found that the plaintiff VPC Group Inc. had failed to make fair disclosure when it initially obtained the orders without notice to the defendants. The Court noted “there has been far from full and fair material disclosure” and held that even if fair disclosure had been made, the orders would be lifted as VPC had failed to meet the requirements for obtaining such drastic orders. The parties agreed on costs, in favour of the Whelton Hiutin client, in the amount of $310,000.

• Arista Homes (Richmond Hill) Inc. v. Rahnama, 2022 ONCA 759
  

  Richard Macklin and Wei Jiang successfully appealed a Superior Court Ruling in the case of Arista Homes (Richmond Hill) Inc. v. Rahnama, 2022 ONCA 759. This Court of Appeal Ruling dated November 7, 2022, addresses the law on damages for cases where a purchaser is at fault for a breach of a home purchase contract. As noted by the Court of Appeal (per Fairburn A.C.J.O., Doherty and Lauwers JJ.A.), the key figure for the damages calculation is the value of the home, according to what it is sold for on the date of resale to a subsequent purchaser (see paragraph 9 of the Ruling). Other Ontario damages law cases had suggested requiring different evidence (“expert” valuation), and a different date (the date the purchaser failed to close). In our case, the Appeal Court varied the Lower Court Ruling such that damages owed to our client will include a higher “loss of bargain” amount, plus the forfeited deposit, interest and other damages. The total award to our client will be roughly $500,000.

• Cherry Cola’s Rock N’ Rolla Inc. v. Choi, (Unreported: May 7, 2021) (Ont. S.C.J.)
  

  Whelton Hiutin partner Richard Macklin and articling student Sukhdeep Gill , acted for a legendary Toronto Night Club and successfully enjoined the club's landlord from evicting it. The findings of Justice Chalmers are of Province-wide importance because they establish the wide-ranging protections available to commercial tenants in regard to the combination of the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy program (CERS) and Regulation 763/20, made under the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.L.7.

• Struthmann v. Struthmann, 2020 ONSC 759
  

  Whelton Hiutin partner Richard Macklin, and articling student Adam Varro, acted for a client who successfully obtained an order allowing him to buy out his estranged wife and daughter and have their employment, officer positions and directorships terminated. Each side alleged oppressive conduct against the other, and the business was in a deadlock position. Each side sought a buy-out order, on oppression grounds, under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (the Act). Our client also sought a buy-out order under section 207 of the Act. The Court declined to weigh in on the oppression allegations but did grant the order our client sought under s. 207 of the Act. The order was granted based on our client having been the more important contributor to the business. Thus, the case is an important authority in regard to an applicant’s right to obtain a buy-out order, in a case of corporate deadlock, in the absence of establishing oppression, based solely on their having made a more significant contribution to the business.

• 7868073 Canada Ltd. et al. v. 1841978 Ontario Inc. et al., 2019 ONSC 1708
  

  In this case, argued by Whelton Hiutin partner Richard Macklin and associate Lucinda Bendu, the main issue was: what nature and quality of assets will be sufficient to defeat the other side’s assertion that the plaintiff corporation has insufficient assets and therefore security for costs should be ordered. Many cases, including this case, involve small business plaintiffs with imperfect financial statements and earnings histories. However, Security for Costs Orders, especially in the $1,000,000 range, have dramatic tactical implications on the proceedings as a whole, in the defendant’s favour. Therefore, such orders should only be granted in circumstances where careful consideration of the available assets and other issues has been given. Justice Hainey of the Commercial List wrestled with these issues in 7868073 Canada Ltd. et al. v. 1841978 Ontario Inc. et al., 2019 ONSC 1708. His Honour dismissed the motion for $1.0 million in security for costs and also ordered $43,000 in costs, in our client’s favour, in a later unreported endorsement.