Alvin Martin Meisels

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, arguing there were no genuine issues for trial.

The plaintiffs opposed, asserting that significant credibility issues and allegations of conspiracy, breach of confidentiality agreements, and fiduciary duties required a full trial.

The court found numerous and significant credibility issues, particularly concerning the misappropriation of business opportunities (Kubota, Hyundai clients) and the circumstances surrounding the hiring of former employees by a competitor.

Given the conflicting evidence and the nature of conspiracy allegations, the court determined that a fair and just determination could not be made on a summary judgment motion.

The motion was dismissed, and the action was ordered to proceed to discoveries and trial.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an application brought by Vladimir Levine, which was dismissed.

Levine had sought a declaration that he was the sole client for an accounts assessment of Michael S. Deverett, Deverett Law Offices.

The court dismissed Levine's application and granted Deverett's request that Mikhail Titkine, a co-signatory, also be considered a client.

Deverett sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing Levine continued to make unfounded allegations of criminal conduct.

The court awarded Deverett $45,000 in all-inclusive costs, reducing the requested amount due to Levine's partial success on an earlier motion to strike.

Vladimir Levine brought an application to determine if Mikhail Titkine, a non-party to the underlying family law litigation, was also a 'client' for the purpose of assessing the respondent lawyer's accounts under section 3 of the Solicitors Act.

The court applied the broader definition of 'client' from section 15 of the Solicitors Act, which includes a person liable to pay the solicitor's bill.

Based on evidence that Titkine signed the retainer agreement, accepted financial responsibility, and made payments, the court found Titkine was indeed a client.

Levine's application for a declaration that he was the only client was dismissed, and the respondent's request that Titkine be considered a client was granted.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and employee, alleged constructive dismissal due to reduced compensation (loss of personal expense reimbursement via corporate cards) and corporate oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, seeking payment for lost benefits and an order for Metcom to purchase his shares.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the card privileges were an informal shareholder arrangement personal to the previous majority shareholder and the applicant, not an employee compensation entitlement, and were subject to the corporation's financial capacity.

Furthermore, the applicant's expectation for share repurchase lacked a legal basis, as there was no shareholders' agreement or other binding arrangement.

The applicant property owner sought an order under s. 61(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to modify restrictive covenants registered against its commercial property for the benefit of the adjoining Home Depot lands.

The restrictions prohibited the sale of various home improvement products to prevent competition with Home Depot, subject to an 'incidental sale' exception.

The applicant argued the restrictions were spent because a previously planned 'big box' development did not proceed, and sought to expand the 'incidental sale' square footage allowance to facilitate its current commercial condominium development.

The court dismissed the application, holding that under the strict test in *Re Lime*, s. 61(1) only permits modification or discharge where a restriction is spent or of no practical value, and cannot be used to reallocate rights between parties based on a balance of convenience or economic efficiency.

Costs decision following motions for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and for partial summary judgment in a real estate dispute.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis based on an earlier offer to settle.

The court held the plaintiffs were entitled to costs for both motions due to their success but declined to award substantial indemnity costs for the CPL motion because the offer to settle was made after that motion was determined.

However, substantial indemnity costs were awarded for the partial summary judgment motion because the plaintiffs had made a reasonable settlement offer that, if accepted, would have resolved the litigation.

The court fixed costs at $55,000 plus HST and disbursements.

In a defamation action arising from letters published in a newspaper criticizing veterinary services, the defendants brought a motion seeking production of additional documents before examinations for discovery.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of the requested records under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

It ordered production of appointment records for the key date, client files relating to 33 clients allegedly lost due to the publication, and financial and client records underlying the plaintiffs’ damages expert report.

Requests for predecessor financial records and a mailing list were denied as premature or irrelevant.

The court rejected claims of confidentiality over client records due to lack of evidence establishing privilege and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a fresh affidavit of documents and proceed under a litigation timetable.