Andrew McNaughton Porter

The plaintiff transportation brokerage sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce a non-solicitation clause against former employees who resigned to join a competitor.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, requiring a strong prima facie case because the injunction would restrict the defendants' ability to earn a living.

The court found the non-solicitation clause was likely too broad in duration and scope, and the departing employee was not a fiduciary.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed, but the court declined to award costs to the successful defendants due to their flagrant disregard for the spirit of the employment agreement and inappropriate handling of confidential information.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The plaintiff sued numerous lawyers, insurers, medical assessors, experts, and court reporting parties arising from the handling of underlying motor vehicle accident tort and accident benefits litigation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and held that the claims were either statute-barred, defeated by the absence of any duty of care, barred by expert witness immunity, unsupported by admissible evidence, or lacking any proof of compensable damage.

Claims against former counsel failed for limitation and lack of expert support and causation; claims against opposing counsel and insurers failed because no duty was owed to an adverse party; claims against expert assessors failed because their litigation-related reports were immune from suit.

Allegations that discovery transcripts had been doctored were unsupported and did not disclose any triable issue.

Summary judgment was granted to all defendants and the action was dismissed.

The defendant sought costs of $29,522.82 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued for substantial indemnity costs from the date of an offer to settle.

The court found that the plaintiff's motion was not unreasonable, as it had an arguable case and the motion served to narrow the issues and shorten future discoveries.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to order costs in the cause, fixing the amount at $22,500 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an indemnity under a commercial property insurance policy following a fire loss.

The parties disputed the amount payable for cleanup costs, with the plaintiff relying on its contractor's invoice and the defendant insurer relying on a lower estimate from its preferred contractor.

The court found significant confusion and miscommunication between the parties regarding which contractor was to provide the control estimate and whether the plaintiff breached the policy by denying access to the insurer's agent.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed as there were genuine issues requiring a trial that could not be resolved on the documentary record.

The member faced allegations of professional misconduct, including using the unauthorized designation of Registered Massage Therapist, issuing a receipt in her son's name, failing to maintain proper patient records, and improperly storing used acupuncture needles.

The member admitted to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an 8-month suspension (reducible to 4 months upon completing conditions), a reprimand, practice conditions, and costs of $2,500.

The moving parties brought four motions in the context of three actions arising from a corporate reorganization of family-owned companies.

Three motions sought to remove Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP as counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest, and the fourth motion sought an order for consolidation, case management, and/or trial together of the three actions.

The court dismissed the motions to remove counsel, finding no risk of misuse of confidential information or impaired representation, and that disqualification was not necessary to maintain the repute of justice given the history of separate representation during contentious negotiations.

The court granted the motion for the actions to be tried together and for the appointment of a case management judge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to extend an expired timetable in a medical malpractice action against the respondent doctors and hospital.

The motion judge applied the four-factor test from Marché d'Alimentation Denis Theriault Ltee v. Giant Tiger Stores Ltd. and found the history of delay and inactivity by the appellant's lawyers to be inexcusable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's assessment of the factors, including prejudice to the respondents given the passage of almost eight years since the surgery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a finding of professional misconduct by the Law Society Appeal Panel related to his uncivil in-court conduct during a lengthy securities fraud trial.

The appellant argued that trial judges, not the Law Society, should oversee in-court conduct and that the Appeal Panel's test for incivility failed to protect zealous advocacy.

The Court of Appeal held that the reasonableness standard of review applied to the Appeal Panel's decision.

The Court found that the Law Society has the statutory authority to discipline lawyers for in-court incivility, independent of a trial judge's actions.

The Court upheld the Appeal Panel's test for incivility and its finding that the appellant's repeated, unfounded allegations of prosecutorial misconduct constituted professional misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent requested to defer the hearing of the merits of a human rights application pending the conclusion of its application for judicial review of a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the principle that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented or delayed by judicial review applications absent exceptional circumstances.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the HPARB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a preliminary hearing by conference call to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

At a case conference in a proposed class action, the plaintiffs sought an adjournment of the defendant's pending jurisdiction motion to summons witnesses.

The defendants objected, arguing an adjournment would prejudice them due to the impending expiry of the limitation period for third-party claims under s. 18 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court resolved the prejudice by ordering that the defendants could deliver pro forma defences and commence third-party proceedings without attorning to the court's jurisdiction, and adjourned the jurisdiction motion.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Panel, which had overturned a Hearing Panel's dismissal of professional misconduct complaints and remitted four particulars for a new hearing.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the Appeal Panel's decision was a final order.

On the merits, the Court held that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel had misapprehended the evidence by failing to accord any weight to the factual findings of predicate tribunals (the HRTO and Superior Court).

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the Law Society.

The respondents requested to dismiss or defer the human rights application on the basis that the facts and issues were currently before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way of proceeding, as concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues raise the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the HPARB proceeding.

Shareholders sought an order requiring the appointment of an auditor and the production of audited financial statements for certain fiscal years under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The applicants argued that a limitation period had not expired for the claim relating to audited financial statements for the 2011 fiscal year.

The court accepted that the limitation period for the 2011 claim had not expired but held that the application sought the appointment of an auditor rather than merely delivery of statements.

Because shareholders were aware by the statutory annual meeting deadlines that auditors had not been appointed, the limitation period for those claims began running in 2010 and 2011 and expired before the application was commenced in 2014.

The endorsement was revised only to clarify the limitation analysis, and the claims remained barred.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal on charges of possession of marijuana, assaulting a police officer, and failing to comply with bail.

The trial judge had concluded that the accused’s Charter rights were violated, apparently based on racial profiling, unlawful arrest, and excessive force, and excluded the marijuana evidence.

The appeal judge held that the trial reasons were inadequate and failed to explain the path to the conclusions, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The decision also contained legal errors, including conflation of Charter concepts relating to detention, arrest, and search, and failure to resolve critical credibility issues regarding the police officer’s evidence.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial ordered.

The moving parties, two of several defendants, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction restraining them from using confidential information and competing with the plaintiff.

The motions judge had found a strong prima facie case that the former president breached his fiduciary duty and that the moving parties were impressed with the same duty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision and no conflicting decision that would warrant granting leave.