Awanish Sinha

The defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario, brought a motion to stay an order dated August 4, 2017.

Following the Divisional Court's dismissal of Ontario's motion for leave to appeal on October 3, 2017, the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to stay as moot.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the disposition of the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The defendants, Ontario and OLG, brought motions to quash summonses to witness served by the plaintiffs on 13 non-parties, including former and current Cabinet ministers, in advance of pending summary judgment motions.

The plaintiffs sought to examine these witnesses under Rule 39.03 regarding the cancellation of the Slots at Race Tracks Program (SARP).

The court held that the defendants had standing to challenge the summonses and that the plaintiffs had met the low threshold of showing the proposed witnesses might have relevant evidence.

The court rejected arguments that the examinations were an abuse of process or barred by Cabinet confidentiality at this stage.

However, the court quashed the summonses served on Premier Kathleen Wynne and Minister Ted McMeekin on the basis of parliamentary privilege, as they were sitting members of the legislature.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) sought an order to enforce an agreement between counsel to delay examinations under Rule 39.03 pending a motion to quash summonses, or alternatively, to stay the summonses.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the quashing of summonses and the standing of HMQ/OLG to quash summonses for unrepresented witnesses.

The court determined that proceeding with examinations would cause irreparable harm to HMQ's legal interests by rendering the motion to quash moot.

The balance of convenience favoured HMQ, and the motion to stay the summonses was granted.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to disqualify the respondents' counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The conflict allegation arose after an associate lawyer, who previously worked at the law firm representing the moving parties, joined the law firm representing the respondents.

The court applied the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decision to satisfy Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order or any matter of general importance to satisfy Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The Uber defendants in a proposed class action moved to disqualify Sutts Strosberg LLP as class counsel, alleging a conflict of interest.

The defendants claimed the firm failed to install adequate internal screens when hiring a lawyer who had previously acted for Uber in related litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lawyer did not acquire relevant confidential information and that Sutts Strosberg had implemented reasonable measures to prevent disclosure, including pre-existing internal safeguards and a prompt full screen upon receiving notice of the alleged conflict.

The court emphasized that removal of counsel is a remedy of last resort and that minor technical errors do not warrant disqualification.

The plaintiffs and the defendant OLG brought cross-motions regarding discovery in an action for damages arising from the cancellation of the Slots at Racetrack Program.

The plaintiffs sought an order compelling OLG to produce relevant emails sent or received by current and former OLG employees on personal, non-OLG email accounts, and to produce OLG's email use and document retention policies.

OLG sought leave to conduct an advance form of discovery by written questions prior to oral examinations.

The court adjourned both motions, ordering OLG to produce its IT and document retention policies for the court's review, and granting the parties leave to file further affidavit evidence regarding OLG's request for written particulars.

The Crown and Ontario First Nations entered into a revenue sharing agreement requiring the Crown to appoint a First Nations representative to the board of directors of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).

When no appointment was made, First Nations sought arbitration.

The Crown and OLG moved to strike the claim, arguing the appointment was protected by Crown prerogative and non-justiciable.

The arbitration panel dismissed the motion and also allowed First Nations to withdraw its claim against OLG.

The Crown and OLG appealed both decisions.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown prerogative could not be used to avoid a declaration that a contract had been breached, and that OLG was not a necessary party to the arbitration.

The defendants moved for a stay of an action concerning approximately $35 million in reserve funds retained from Casino Rama revenues.

The plaintiff alleged that maintaining the reserves breached limits imposed under a later revenue-sharing agreement, while the defendants argued the dispute arose under an earlier agreement that required arbitration.

The court considered the competence-competence principle and jurisprudence directing courts to defer to arbitration where it is arguable that a dispute falls within an arbitration clause.

Because the dispute arguably arose under the earlier contract incorporating arbitration provisions, the court held that the matter should proceed to arbitration.

The action was therefore stayed pending determination by an arbitrator of whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.

The moving parties sought a stay of an arbitration proceeding pending appeals from arbitration panel decisions concerning jurisdiction and party participation.

The dispute arose from an agreement granting the respondent First Nations partnership a right to have a nominee appointed to the board of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.

The moving parties argued the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction due to the Crown prerogative over appointments and that the exclusion of the corporation from the arbitration violated natural justice.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay from RJR‑MacDonald, the court found serious issues on appeal regarding jurisdiction, irreparable harm to the public interest if arbitration proceeded prematurely, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The court therefore stayed the arbitration pending determination of the appeals.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling $143,891.09.

The plaintiff did not dispute liability for costs, the hours spent, the disbursements, or the hourly rates, but argued that proportionality required a reduction of professional fees to $75,000.

The court applied the governing principles of reasonableness and proportionality in assessing costs under rule 57.01(1).

Considering the five‑day trial, the complexity of the litigation, the parties’ settlement offers, and reasonable expectations, the court found the defendants’ claimed fees excessive.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 in fees plus $40,533.09 in disbursements.

The plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment after the defendants adopted a name she proposed in a response to a request for proposals for retail space at a casino complex.

The plaintiff asserted that she created the phrase used for the retail area and that the defendants later adopted it after rejecting her proposal.

The court found that the phrase originated from the historical and cultural terminology of the First Nation and was not an original creation of the plaintiff.

It also held that the name provided no financial or commercial benefit to the defendants and was offered gratuitously during the proposal process.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish enrichment, deprivation, or absence of juristic reason as required for unjust enrichment.