Alexa Lillian Sulzenko

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an appeal following the granting of leave.

The court directed that the appeal be heard by a panel of three judges via video conference.

Detailed procedural directions were provided regarding the electronic filing of materials, the use of a password-protected drop box, and the continuation of a sealing order.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 in the cause of the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule a teleconference with the Divisional Court Administrative Judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the defendant from challenging the validity of a U.S. patent owned by the plaintiffs, relying on a 'no challenge' clause in a prior settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the defendant's U.S. subsidiary, which was challenging the patent, was not a party to the agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the restrictive covenant was not reasonable in the public interest, as it would prevent a potentially valid defence and run counter to the public policy favouring free competition.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to refuse enforcement, arguing it had mistakenly made a prior payment of $115,465.20 to the plaintiff which it did not know about during mediation.

The court found that the written Minutes of Settlement were clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant's mistake was unilateral.

Because there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the mistake or engaged in fraud, the court enforced the settlement and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining balance.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during cross-examination on the basis of settlement and solicitor-client privilege, and to examine the plaintiff's counsel under Rule 39.03.

The underlying dispute involved a motion to enforce a wrongful dismissal settlement where the defendant alleged a mistake of fact regarding amounts already paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not waived privilege by putting his legal advice in issue, and that examining opposing counsel was neither necessary nor highly material to justify breaching solicitor-client privilege.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $45,000.

The appellant and other responding insurers were awarded additional costs fixed at $20,000.

Former clients applied under the Solicitors Act to have legal accounts rendered by their former law firm assessed after paying more than $300,000 in fees and disbursements.

The respondent law firm argued the application was barred by the 12‑month limitation in s. 4 of the Solicitors Act, that the accounts had been paid, and that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court held that commencing an application within 12 months preserves the right to assessment and that, in any event, the two‑year limitation under the Limitations Act may apply.

The court found “special circumstances” under s. 11, including the unexpectedly large fees, the pressure to promptly pay accounts, and the clients’ limited understanding of their right to challenge the bills.

However, because the clients had previously represented certain work as reasonable when seeking costs before another judge, those portions of the accounts were excluded from review.

The remaining portions of the accounts were referred for assessment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondent Diocese in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay US$15 million for defence costs under a directors' and officers' liability policy.

The dispute centered on whether an exclusion clause (Endorsement #14) unambiguously excluded coverage for claims against the insured's directors and officers acting in their capacity as executives of a bankrupt former subsidiary.

The Court of Appeal found the exclusion clause ambiguous, as it could reasonably be interpreted to either exclude or preserve coverage depending on the capacity in which the executives were sued.

Because the factual matrix did not resolve the ambiguity and the motion judge had not made findings regarding the parties' reasonable expectations, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and returned the matter to the Superior Court for trial.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to certify a class action against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear the appeal regarding the refusal to certify the action against the College, Farnsworth, and the Estate of Haig.

The court directed that the appeal involving those parties be transferred to the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action on behalf of former members of a defined benefit pension plan seeking 100% of the plan's surplus.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at mediation, which included the defendants paying 100% of the surplus to plan members and an additional $350,000 inclusive of costs and interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement.

The court found the test for certification was met and granted the motion on consent.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action certification motion and the dismissal of claims against one defendant for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting certification and for obtaining dismissal of the claim against the diocesan defendant.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued for reductions based on public interest, access to justice concerns, and alleged unnecessary litigation steps.

The court rejected arguments for a public interest or access-to-justice discount and confirmed that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies in class proceedings.

The Grenville defendants were awarded their full claimed costs, while the diocesan defendant’s claim was reduced as excessive.

The plaintiffs, former residential students at Grenville Christian College, moved to certify a class action against the school, its former headmasters, and the Anglican Diocese of Ontario, alleging systemic physical and psychological abuse and religious indoctrination.

The court dismissed the action against the Diocese, finding it plain and obvious that the Diocese owed no duty of care, was not vicariously liable, and had no fiduciary relationship with the students.

The court also dismissed the certification motion against the remaining defendants, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the common issues of systemic negligence would not significantly advance the individual claims.

Instead, the court suspended the dismissal for six months to allow the plaintiffs to propose a new litigation plan to continue the action as a group of case-managed individual actions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification decision that refused to certify class members' entitlement to punitive damages as a common issue and bifurcated common issues relating to the quantification and apportionment of waiver of tort damages.

The Divisional Court found that there were conflicting decisions on both issues and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

Leave to appeal was granted on both issues and the hearing of the appeal was expedited.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order bifurcating common issues relating to the quantification and apportionment of any accounting or disgorgement for a claim based on waiver of tort from the other common issues in a class action concerning allegedly defective cardiac defibrillators.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions on the issue of bifurcation and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, noting the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the case management judge, who directed that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification be heard prior to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's discretionary decision regarding the timing of procedural motions.