Baktash Waseil

Shareholders of a closely held private corporation sought a certificate of pending litigation against the former director's personal residence, alleging misappropriation of corporate funds.

The former director moved to discharge the CPL so that a scheduled property sale could close.

The court found a material non-disclosure on the ex parte motion — the moving parties failed to disclose the former director's responding affidavit explaining that his property had been pledged as security for the corporation's operating line of credit.

The court further found that the primary relief sought was repayment or damages, not a proprietary interest in land, and that the moving parties' interests could be adequately protected by having the net proceeds of sale paid into court.

The CPL was ordered discharged upon payment of net sale proceeds into court, with a disputed $49,990 charge in favour of the former director's law firm also to be paid into court pending further order.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal Paragraph 22 of the order of Perell J. dated February 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the parties to arrange a case conference regarding the conduct of the appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $10 million settlement in a certified class action against a ballet school and a former instructor/photographer for alleged sexual assault and privacy breaches.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of Class Counsel's fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs and certain class members.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved Class Counsel's fee request of $2.25 million.

However, the court declined to approve the requested honoraria, holding on principle that the practice of awarding a stipend to representative plaintiffs for prosecuting a civil claim is contrary to the administration of justice and should be stopped.

The plaintiff, suing the school board for historical abuse by a teacher, brought a motion to compel production of his grade 3 class register and the last known contact information of his classmates.

The school board opposed, arguing that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) prohibited disclosure, that the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies, and that the request was disproportionate and violated the classmates' privacy.

The court granted the motion, holding that civil discovery rights are distinct from MFIPPA access rights, the classmates were potential witnesses, and the privacy concerns did not outweigh the need for disclosure.

The court limited the scope of the school board's search for contact information to ensure proportionality.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action brought a refusals motion to compel the defendant, Bruce Monk, to answer 31 questions refused and 6 questions taken under advisement during his examination for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations that the defendant took intimate photographs of ballet students.

The refused questions primarily related to photographs of non-class members, including former students and staff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the questions to be immaterial, irrelevant, disproportionate, and an overreaching fishing expedition, noting that discovery in class proceedings is generally restricted to certified common issues.

The plaintiff's production motion was dismissed without prejudice, conditional on exhausting remedies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPP).

The plaintiff re-brought the motion without exhausting these appeal rights.

The court dismissed the motion again, without prejudice, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $1,000.00 to the defendant, finding the requested costs of $2,900.00 excessive given the motion's simplicity and prior arguments on similar issues.

The plaintiff, Massimo Gargari, brought a motion seeking the production of a class register from 1983-1984 in a historical abuse case, arguing that former classmates might be witnesses to alleged abuse.

The defendant, Toronto Catholic District School Board, opposed the request, primarily citing prohibitions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPP).

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion as premature, ruling that the plaintiff had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under the MFIPP for the disclosure of personal information, which includes a specific procedure and an appeal process.

The court emphasized the need to protect the privacy of individuals, particularly those who were children at the time the records were created.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and a former instructor/photographer, Bruce Monk.

The plaintiffs alleged that Monk took intimate photographs of students in private settings and disseminated them without consent, constituting sexual assault, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion of privacy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, there was an identifiable class, and there were 23 common issues.

The court also found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure and that the representative plaintiffs were suitable.

The certification motion was granted.

The applicants sought judicial review of a school board's decision to involuntarily transfer a Grade 12 student to a new school under its Fresh Start Policy following his involvement in an assault on another student.

The applicants argued the transfer was an unauthorized disciplinary measure, that they were denied procedural fairness, and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the transfer was an administrative measure aimed at protecting the victim's well-being, not a disciplinary sanction.

The court also held that the procedural fairness owed was met and the superintendent's decision was reasonable.

The applicants brought a motion for an interim order staying the school board's decision to transfer a student to another school following a suspension for an assault.

The motion was dismissed because the transfer had already taken place and the relief sought was identical to the relief requested in the pending application for judicial review, which must be decided by a full panel.

The appellants appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice dated February 3, 2017.

The appellants did not appear at the hearing despite attempts by the court to contact them.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the materials and found no merit in the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Georgian Properties Corporation (GPC) brought a motion to strike the factum of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2051 (TSCC) in its entirety or in part, arguing that it raised issues outside the scope of the pleadings, contrary to a prior settlement agreement and court decisions.

The court found that the majority of TSCC's factum was proper, as many arguments related to the adequacy of disclosure or the exorbitant nature of mortgages, which were within the existing pleadings.

However, specific paragraphs alleging new claims, such as breach of agreements of purchase and sale or broader breaches of fiduciary duty, were struck.

The court denied GPC's request for the summary judgment motion to proceed before a different judge, citing efficiency and the judge's ability to remain impartial.

GPC's motion was deemed largely unnecessary, and GPC was ordered to pay TSCC's partial indemnity costs of $9,134.92.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action brought by CIT Financial Ltd. against several defendants, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale, including legal and expert fees.

The court considered the complexity, importance, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

While the court found the defendants were diligent in bringing their summary judgment motion after discoveries, it significantly reduced the claimed expert fees for Zeifmans (to one-third) and Duff & Phelps (to 50%).

This reduction was due to the defendants' experts' unreasonable refusal to cooperate with the plaintiff's expert, leading to unnecessary duplication of work in calculations.

Ultimately, CIT Financial Ltd. was ordered to pay the defendants legal fees totaling $1,706,147.92 and reduced disbursements (including expert fees) totaling $550,182.34.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action for indemnity under a share purchase agreement.

The action was based on alleged breaches of a tax representation and warranty.

The defendants argued the action was statute-barred and that the plaintiff's claim for "loss of use of funds" was limited by contract.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the action was statute-barred because the six-year limitation period began when the plaintiff knew the material facts of the breach and the resulting "claim" (Revenue Canada's reassessment), not upon a demand for indemnity or its refusal.

The court also dismissed the claim for loss of use of funds beyond the contractually agreed prime rate.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his $25,000 claim for damages arising from a condominium water leak.

At trial, the appellant attempted to introduce a new expert report on mould on the final day of trial, which the trial judge refused to admit due to late notice and unfairness to the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's discretionary decision to exclude the late evidence under Rule 18.02(1) was not clearly wrong and did not amount to an injustice.

Furthermore, the trial judge correctly found that the appellant had sued the wrong parties.