Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Procedural challenge by respondent Ronald Hitti to the accuracy of a prior published endorsement on CanLII in an ongoing oppression application under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.
• Allegations that the CanLII version misidentified the applications affected by the order, the moving parties, the hearing date, and counsel present, and that these errors were prejudicial to Mr. Hitti.
• The court’s finding that the prior endorsement of Osborne J. correctly identifies the moving parties and the nature of the motion, so the alleged misidentification of the order and moving parties is unfounded.
• Recognition that some minor errors exist in the CanLII version (hearing date and endorsement date, and omission of some counsel information), but the court holds these matters are inconsequential and do not affect the substance of the earlier endorsement.
• Refusal by the court to answer questions about internal court processes for preparing and transmitting endorsements and orders to CanLII and the court office.
• Judicial discretion confirmed over whether endorsements (including those of Kimmel J. and Cavanagh J.) receive neutral citations and are sent to CanLII, with no requirement to publish those earlier endorsements despite Mr. Hitti’s request.

Background and procedural context

This case arises from an oppression application brought under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-16, before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List). The applicants are Devad (Alex) Seferovic, Reza Abedi and Rodolphe Najim, and the respondents include 285 Spadina SPV Inc., Ronald (Rony) Hitti and Rajah Farah. The proceeding is therefore rooted in a corporate/shareholder dispute, framed as alleged oppressive conduct in relation to a closely held corporation and related commercial interests. The endorsement in question, dated April 16, 2025 and issued by Cavanagh J. (reported as 2026 ONSC 2256), does not deal with the substantive merits of the oppression claim. Instead, it responds to an email sent by respondent Ronald Hitti to the Commercial List Office on April 1, 2026, in which he challenges how a prior endorsement of Osborne J. was published on CanLII and seeks directions on publication of other endorsements in the file.

The prior endorsement of Osborne J. and the related applications

The email from Mr. Hitti focuses on an earlier endorsement of Osborne J. (as he then was) dated September 19, 2023. That endorsement related to a motion in the oppression application heard on May 25, 2023, in court file CV-21-00662130-00CL. In the style of cause for that endorsement, both the oppression application and a related lease application are listed, reflecting that there were two related proceedings between the same parties: one corporate oppression application and one lease application. The Osborne endorsement was later transmitted to and published on CanLII under the citation Seferovic et al. v. 285 Spadina, 2023 ONSC 5578. In his email, Mr. Hitti asserts that the published version on CanLII contains several alleged errors he believes are prejudicial to him, including how the order is characterized, who brought the motion, the date of the hearing, the appearance and roles of counsel, and the date of the endorsement itself.

Alleged errors regarding the applications and moving parties

First, Mr. Hitti claims that the CanLII endorsement is prejudicial because it misidentifies the order as having been made in both the oppression application and the lease application. Cavanagh J. rejects this assertion. While the published endorsement shows the title of proceeding for each of the two related applications, paragraph 1 of Osborne J.’s endorsement clearly states that the motion was brought by the applicants in the oppression application, and that is the proceeding in which the motion was heard and decided. This means that, when read properly, the endorsement does not suggest the order was made in both applications; rather, it simply lists both related proceedings while clearly tying the motion to the oppression file. As a result, the court concludes there is no substantive misidentification of the proceeding to which the order relates.

Second, Mr. Hitti alleges that the CanLII endorsement misidentifies the moving parties on the motion. Again, the court points back to paragraph 1 of Osborne J.’s endorsement, which expressly states that the motion was brought by the applicants in the oppression application. On that basis, Cavanagh J. finds that there is no misidentification of the moving parties and that this complaint is unfounded. The document, as released by the court and as understood by a reasonable reader, properly reflects that the applicants in the oppression proceeding were the moving parties.

Issues regarding hearing date, counsel identification, and endorsement date

The more technical errors raised by Mr. Hitti relate to the recording of the hearing date and the date of the endorsement, as well as the presence and roles of counsel. In this regard, the CanLII version of the endorsement incorrectly states that the motion was heard on September 19, 2023, when in fact the hearing took place earlier on May 25, 2023. The CanLII version also shows the endorsement as dated October 4, 2023, whereas the endorsement actually released by Osborne J. is dated September 19, 2023. These discrepancies are acknowledged by Cavanagh J. as factual inaccuracies in the CanLII publication history.

In addition, Mr. Hitti complains that the CanLII endorsement fails to mention that, at the time of the hearing, counsel for the applicants (as moving parties) also represented one of the respondents, 285 Spadina SPV Inc. The published endorsement identifies counsel for respondent Raja Farah, but does not state whether that counsel was present at the hearing. Cavanagh J. notes that Osborne J. did not state in his endorsement that counsel for Ms. Farah was present on the motion, and indicates that even if they were not present, this omission is “of no consequence.” The court’s approach underscores that the purpose of an endorsement is to record the reasons and outcome of a motion, and not necessarily to provide a complete attendance sheet or elaborate on all counsel’s roles, absent a specific legal issue requiring such detail.

Assessment of prejudice and materiality of the publication errors

In addressing these concerns, the court distinguishes between inconsequential publication errors and matters that would affect substantive rights or the integrity of the decision. While acknowledging that the dates and some attendance details were not perfectly recorded in the CanLII version, Cavanagh J. concludes that these inaccuracies do not in any way affect the substance of Osborne J.’s endorsement. The motion remains one brought by the applicants in the oppression application, adjudicated on its merits as recorded in the original court file. There is no suggestion that the underlying legal reasoning, operative orders, or disposition of the motion were impacted by the misstatements of dates or omission of certain counsel details in the publicly accessible version. Accordingly, the court finds that the alleged prejudice asserted by Mr. Hitti is not made out, and that there is no basis to alter or correct the published endorsement in a way that would change its legal effect.

Questions about internal court processes and publication practices

Beyond the specific complaints about the CanLII endorsement, Mr. Hitti’s email asks a series of questions about internal court processes for preparing endorsements and orders, how they are transmitted to CanLII, and the administrative steps involved. He also queries issues related to an endorsement and order of Kimmel J. dated February 3, 2023, and to earlier endorsements and orders of Cavanagh J. dated September 29, 2025. He requests citation numbers for those endorsements and asks that they be sent to CanLII for publication. Cavanagh J. categorically refuses to answer questions about internal court processes, characterizing them as “not proper” for judicial response. The endorsement affirms that the inner workings of how reasons and orders are formatted, transmitted, or otherwise processed by the court office fall within judicial and administrative discretion, and are not matters on which parties are entitled to interrogate the court.

With respect to publication, the endorsement emphasizes that the decision whether to assign a neutral citation number and send an endorsement to CanLII for publication is for the judge who made the endorsement. In this case, the relevant judges (including Kimmel J. and Cavanagh J. himself) have already released the endorsements to the parties. Because Mr. Hitti already holds copies of those endorsements, he is free to use them “for any proper purpose” in other proceedings or contexts. However, he has not demonstrated any sufficient reason why those endorsements need to be published to CanLII at this late stage, long after their release. The court therefore declines to direct that citation numbers be assigned or that the earlier endorsements be newly published.

Absence of policy terms and substantive merits

Although the larger dispute involves a corporate oppression application and a related lease application, this particular endorsement does not grapple with the core contractual or policy terms that may underlie the parties’ substantive dispute. There is no discussion of specific corporate bylaws, shareholder agreements, lease clauses, or insurance policy terms. The reasons are narrowly framed around corrections (or alleged corrections) to the public record of an earlier procedural decision and judicial control over publication. Any clauses or terms that might be central to the oppression remedy or lease claims are not canvassed in the text available, and thus cannot be summarized or analyzed based on this document alone.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary relief

In outcome, this endorsement effectively rejects the relief sought by respondent Ronald Hitti in his email. The court finds that the central assertions of prejudice concerning misidentification of the applications and moving parties are incorrect, and that the remaining errors about dates and counsel identification are inconsequential and do not affect the substance of the earlier endorsement. The court further refuses to answer questions about internal court processes or to direct that earlier endorsements of Kimmel J. and Cavanagh J. be assigned citations and sent to CanLII. As this decision is purely procedural and administrative, it does not identify any party as the ultimate successful party on the underlying oppression or lease applications, and it does not award or quantify any damages, costs, or other monetary relief. On the limited text provided, the successful party in the overall case and the total amount of any monetary awards or costs cannot be determined from this endorsement.