Brian Nathan Radnoff

These consolidated appeals arise from related class actions certified in 2012 concerning bingo license and administration fees charged by two municipalities.

The appellants, charitable organizations, sought to amend their pleadings after the opt-out period expired to claim disgorgement of all allegedly illegal fees received by the municipalities, including those paid by persons who had opted out of the class.

The Court of Appeal quashed appeals of interlocutory orders lifting protective orders that had shielded the identities of opt-outs during a reconsideration period, and dismissed appeals of orders refusing leave to amend the statements of claim.

The court held that the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the nature of the certified claims and lacked reasonable prospect of success.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Robert Tanner and Tanner & Guiney, on the grounds of a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The defendant argued that Mr. Tanner would likely be an important witness at trial and had a direct interest in the litigation, as the current action alleged professional negligence against the defendant in an underlying action where Tanner subsequently acted for the plaintiffs.

The court considered the balancing of maintaining high standards of the legal profession, the integrity of the justice system, and the litigant's right to counsel of choice.

The Master found that Tanner's role as an advocate could not be reconciled with his role as a witness, given the material facts he would need to testify about regarding his actions in the underlying action and the allegations of his own potential negligence.

The motion was granted, and Tanner was removed as counsel.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's dismissal of its claims for conversion, detinue, passing off, unjust enrichment, and unlawful interference with economic interests.

The appeal concerned equipment purchased by the respondent under a licence agreement that contained a first option to purchase clause.

The appellant failed to serve written notice of its intention to purchase the equipment within the required 60-day period following termination of the agreement.

The court upheld the trial judge's dismissal, finding that the appellant's claims for conversion and detinue could not succeed and that there was insufficient evidence to support the damages claims.

In a class action regarding allegedly illegal bingo licensing fees, the defendants brought a motion to lift an interim protection order that prevented them from sharing the identities of class members who opted out with their municipal clients.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that revealing the identities could harm the charities' fundraising efforts.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found insufficient evidence of a serious threat to the commercial interests of the potential class members.

Emphasizing the open court principle, the court granted the defendants' motion and lifted the protection order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal which was dismissed.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs suggested $5,000 was appropriate given the motion was in writing.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 payable forthwith, considering the costs awarded on the underlying contempt motion and the merits of the leave application.

The defendants were successful on a motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiffs in a class proceeding.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $10,000, while the plaintiffs suggested $5,000 was appropriate given the motion was in writing.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 payable forthwith, considering the costs awarded on the underlying contempt motion and the merits of the leave application.

The plaintiffs in two class action proceedings sought leave to appeal a case management judge's dismissal of their motion for contempt.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant municipality breached a court order limiting communication with class members during the opt-out period.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the case management judge correctly applied the test for civil contempt, reasonably concluded the order was subject to multiple interpretations, and that there was no conflicting case law or good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The plaintiffs in two class action proceedings sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their motion for contempt against the defendants.

The contempt motion alleged that the City of Windsor breached an order limiting communication with class members during an opt-out period.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the original judge correctly applied the test for contempt, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a clear and unequivocal order, and deliberate and willful disobedience.

The court found no error in the original judge's conclusion that the order was ambiguous and that a wilful breach was not proven.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to identify any conflicting decisions or raise matters of such importance to warrant leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court determined costs for several motions following a previous endorsement.

Filomena Siggillino was ordered to pay costs for an abandoned motion.

Filomena, Teresa Scalamogna, and Lilianna Siggillino were ordered to pay costs for a successful Vesting Order motion brought by 2377544 Ontario Inc. and an unsuccessful Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) motion brought by Filomena.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity, and adjusted the claimed amounts based on the complexity of the proceedings, the results achieved, and the clarity of the costs submissions.

This endorsement addresses two motions within related legal proceedings concerning a "family feud" over a property.

Robert Di Toro, on behalf of 2377544 Ontario Inc., sought a vesting order to facilitate the sale of a property, with $1,500,000.00 to be paid into court as previously ordered by Master Short.

Filomena Siggillino, the mother of the other parties, brought a cross-motion for leave to register her own Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property, alleging fraudulent misuse of a Power of Attorney by her daughters, Teresa Scalamogna and Lilianna Siggillino.

The court dismissed Filomena's cross-motion for a CPL, finding no tenable cause of action against Robert/2377544 Ontario Inc. and that damages would be an appropriate remedy.

The court also noted the disingenuous position of Teresa and Lilianna in supporting their mother's motion, which undermined their own prior claims, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the court granted the vesting order sought by 2377544 Ontario Inc., allowing the property sale to proceed with the specified funds paid into court.

The Law Society appealed a decision of the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal ordering a new hearing due to a lack of disclosure.

The respondent lawyer, facing professional misconduct allegations related to real estate fraud, sought disclosure of the files of other lawyers involved in the transactions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 49.12 of the Law Society Act does not create a statutory privilege barring disclosure, but rather a confidentiality rule with exceptions for conduct proceedings.

The Court affirmed that the Stinchcombe disclosure regime applies, requiring the Law Society to disclose potentially relevant material from other lawyers' files, subject to resolving any solicitor-client privilege claims.

The plaintiffs brought a contempt motion alleging that the defendants, the City of Windsor and the Town of Tecumseh, breached a January 29, 2016 order regarding an opt-out campaign in a class proceeding.

The alleged breaches involved new radio advertisements and a live interview by the Mayor of Windsor.

The court found that the order's terms were arguably subject to more than one interpretation and that the defendants did not deliberately and willfully breach the order.

The contempt motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' request for further disclosure was denied.

The defendant municipalities sought leave to appeal a Case Management Judge's order requiring them to cease and desist an opt-out campaign directed at class members, which the judge found created undue influence.

The plaintiff class representatives sought leave to cross-appeal, arguing the judge should have ordered the removal of existing communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Case Management Judge's findings or the discretionary remedy granted.

The appellants, former lawyers at a firm where the principal misappropriated trust funds, appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside or vary a garnishment order against the firm's professional liability insurer.

The respondents, who were owed $3.6 million, sought to exhaust the $1 million policy limits.

The appellants argued they needed the policy for defence costs against threatened claims by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, varying the order to require the respondents to release any claims against the appellants relating to the trust funds as a condition of receiving the garnished insurance proceeds, noting the respondents could not articulate any substantive claim against the appellants.

The plaintiff commenced an action against her former legal and financial advisors alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with advice provided during negotiation of a marriage contract.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions asserting that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process because the plaintiff had a statutory remedy under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the marriage contract against her spouse.

The court held the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability and knew or ought to have known of the material facts giving rise to her claims more than two years before commencing the action.

The court further held that attempting to obtain, through damages against advisors, relief that should have been pursued through family law proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order and warrant of committal for civil contempt, which imposed seven months of house arrest, 24 months of probation, and 300 hours of community service for breaching a conditional sentence.

The appellant argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction and that the sentence was unduly harsh.

The Court of Appeal held that civil contempt is governed by Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and while a judge may use s. 742 of the Criminal Code for guidance, they are not constrained by it.

The Court upheld the extension of the conditional sentence but set aside the 300 hours of community service as unreasonable.

LAWPRO brought a motion for directions regarding an order requiring it to pay out professional liability insurance proceeds to the applicants.

Three lawyers formerly employed by the respondent law firm had appealed a subsequent order dismissing their motion to vary the payout order, which they argued was made without notice to them.

The Court of Appeal held that the payout order was not automatically stayed under rule 63.01(1) because it was not the order under appeal.

However, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court granted a discretionary stay under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the lawyers would suffer irreparable harm if the policy was exhausted and that fairness dictated they should not be prejudiced by the applicants' failure to provide them with notice of the original motion.

The moving party appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his motion for a stay of a contempt finding and sentence pending appeal, and ordering security for costs.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding there was no serious question to be argued, noting an arguable issue regarding the proper procedure for enforcing a conditional sentence for contempt.

The Court granted the stay pending appeal, varied the security for costs order to $10,000, and set aside the order dismissing the appeal for delay.

Non-party insured lawyers moved under Rule 37.14(1) to set aside or vary an earlier order permitting garnishment of the professional liability policy of a lawyer and law firm, where the prior order effectively exhausted the policy limits.

The court held the moving parties were persons affected by the earlier order and had failed to appear because they were not served and did not receive adequate, meaningful notice.

On the merits, however, the court rejected the new coverage and priority arguments, holding the underlying orders requiring payment of client trust funds engaged the policy and supported garnishment.

The motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded because all sides bore some responsibility for the duplicative proceedings.

The court imposed sentence following a second finding of civil contempt for breach of a prior sentencing order that required the contemnor to remain within Ontario.

Despite a stay expiring and an obligation to return to Canada, the contemnor chose to remain in Europe to complete a vacation, making only minimal efforts to alter travel arrangements.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including the repeat contempt and a demonstrated disregard for court authority, while identifying minimal mitigation.

Emphasizing denunciation and specific deterrence, the court imposed a seven‑month conditional sentence and extended probation with strict travel restrictions and community service.