Brendan Clancy

The moving defendant sought to strike paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging intentional exploitation of confidential information and unlawful interference with economic interests.

Applying the Rule 21 plain and obvious standard, the court held the pleadings, read generously, alleged unauthorized acquisition and use of confidential information belonging not only to the plaintiff but also to third-party clients.

The court further held that this alleged conduct was capable of giving rise to a third-party cause of action in intrusion upon seclusion, thereby satisfying the unlawful act requirement for the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations.

The motion to strike was dismissed and costs were fixed at $2,000 payable by the moving defendant.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that dismissed its motion to disqualify the defendants' law firm of record.

A lawyer who had worked extensively on the plaintiff's case moved to the defendants' boutique law firm.

The plaintiff argued the ethical wall put in place was insufficient.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order because he appeared to reverse the onus by treating the matter as a balancing act rather than applying the rebuttable presumption of disqualification.

The court also found the issue of migrating lawyers and confidential information to be of significant importance to the profession and the public.

Following a successful motion by certain defendant insurers seeking a declaration that their law firm could continue acting despite the arrival of a lawyer who had previously acted for the opposing party, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful party argued that the motion arose from circumstances created by the law firm’s hiring decision and that each party should bear its own costs, or alternatively that the amount sought was excessive.

The court applied the principles governing costs under s.131.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness rather than strict indemnification.

Although the successful defendants claimed approximately $59,800, the court found that amount excessive for a half‑day motion.

Costs were fixed at $42,000 payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that an ethical screen implemented by their counsel of record was sufficient to prevent the disclosure of the plaintiff's confidential information after a lawyer who previously represented the plaintiff joined the firm.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to disqualify the firm due to a conflict of interest.

The court applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin and considered the Law Society's guidelines for ethical screens.

Finding that the firm had implemented timely and comprehensive institutional measures, the court concluded that a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur.

The defendants' motion was granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

The respondents on an appeal brought a motion for security for costs against the foreign appellant, who was appealing the dismissal of his forum non conveniens motion in an action for damages related to torture in Iran.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appeal was not frivolous and vexatious under Rule 61.06(1)(a), and that there was no 'other good reason' to order security under Rule 61.06(1)(c), noting the general policy against imposing security for costs on foreign defendants forced to defend themselves in Ontario.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it wrongfully dismissed the respondent, a 17-year employee who failed to lock-out a machine and delayed reporting the safety violation.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the trial judge erred in relying on a comparator incident involving another employee whose violation was unknown to management at the time.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that dismissal without notice was a disproportionate response given the respondent's long, almost unblemished record and the fact that his mistake did not put others at risk.