Barry Allan Kuretzky

Following a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to individually named defendants whose claims had been struck as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had asserted a $10 million claim against individual employees and directors of corporate defendants without adequately pleading separate acts or interests beyond their corporate roles.

The individual defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the claims constituted tactical harassment.

The court found the claims against the individuals lacked proper particulars but concluded the circumstances did not justify elevated costs.

Partial indemnity costs were instead fixed at reduced amounts reflecting duplication of work with corporate defendants’ counsel.

The defendants moved under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy, unlawful interference with economic interests, trespass, and breach of confidence arising from alleged GPS tracking of the plaintiff’s service vehicles to obtain customer information.

The court held that the pleadings for civil conspiracy lacked the required material facts and particulars but granted leave to amend.

The claim for intentional interference with economic interests was struck without leave to amend because the pleadings failed to allege unlawful means directed at a third party as required by the Supreme Court’s formulation of the tort.

Allegations against individual corporate officers were struck as an abuse of process for failing to plead independent tortious conduct.

Claims for trespass to chattels and breach of confidence were allowed to proceed, while the trespass to land claim was struck with leave to amend.

The applicant, a university professor, filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers alleging academic mobbing and reprisal.

The respondents and the intervenor university argued the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving all past and future human rights complaints arising from the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found the language of the settlement was clear and unambiguous, precluding the new applications.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed seven applications against former co-workers.

The Tribunal previously directed a preliminary hearing to determine if Minutes of Settlement precluded the applications.

The applicant and the intervenor, Lakehead University, disputed the disclosure of the confidential Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal ordered redacted portions of the Minutes of Settlement to be disclosed to the respondents so they could make submissions on their defence.

A request to intervene by a former applicant was denied, but he was granted limited rights as an affected party.

The applicant's request to remove the intervenor's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest was dismissed.

The applicant filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers.

The applicant's former employer, Lakehead University, filed a request to intervene, arguing that the applications were an abuse of process because they were barred by a release in previously executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal granted the University's request to intervene, finding it had a direct interest in the proceedings and the remedies sought.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file the Minutes of Settlement and directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process, for having no reasonable prospect of success, or due to delay.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing it sought to add allegations about events subsequent to 2009 that the Tribunal had previously refused to allow as amendments to earlier consolidated applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the previous decision only restricted the scope of the earlier applications to prevent undue delay, but did not preclude the applicant from filing a new application regarding continuing alleged reprisals.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's alternative request for an extension of time to file its Response.

Following settlement of a security for costs motion by consent order requiring the corporate plaintiffs to post security into court, the court was asked to determine costs of the motion.

The plaintiffs argued the motion was unnecessary because they had offered undertakings from partners and allegedly accepted settlement proposals involving promissory notes.

The court held that a costs endorsement should not determine the merits of the underlying motion and applied the test of whether the moving parties’ position was clearly unreasonable.

It found the defendants reasonably proceeded with the motion, as the sufficiency of the undertakings and the existence of a concluded settlement were not self‑evident and the plaintiffs failed to provide timely details.

The moving parties, having obtained substantially the relief sought through the consent order, were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant's representative later contacted the Tribunal, explaining her own absence due to a medical issue and stating that the applicant was out of the country and had not contacted her.

The Tribunal found this explanation inadequate for the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals, stating they were in entire agreement with the reasons of the lower court judge.

The respondent did not seek costs.

The applicant alleged that the National Hockey League Players Association violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a consultation, the Board determined that there were substantive facts in dispute and issues of credibility.

The Board directed that a hearing be held de novo and provided the National Hockey League with an opportunity to intervene.