Brian N. Radnoff

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine the appropriate sanction for the Developer Defendants' continuing contempt of a Mareva and Disclosure Order, following a Court of Appeal decision remitting the matter for re-sentencing.

The court found that the defendants had still not purged their contempt, having failed to properly account for the plaintiffs' $9 million investment.

The court sentenced the individual defendants to 30 days of intermittent incarceration, struck the statement of defence, and deemed the defendants noted in default, with leave to apply to file a defence only if they fully purge their contempt.

The plaintiffs (purchasers in a real estate transaction) brought a motion to stay or dismiss a separate action commenced by the defendant real estate brokerage for unpaid commission, arguing it should have been brought as a counterclaim and was an abuse of process.

The defendant brokerage brought a cross-motion to transfer the plaintiffs' action from Toronto to Oshawa, where multiple related actions were already pending.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding it was not an abuse of process for the brokerage to commence a separate action given its dual role as plaintiff and defendant with separate counsel.

The court granted the cross-motion to transfer the Toronto action to Oshawa, noting the property, witnesses, and related proceedings were all located in the Oshawa area.

The plaintiffs sought penalties against the defendants for their continued contempt of court orders requiring them to provide an accounting of $9,000,000 in allegedly defrauded funds, information about luxury automobiles, contact information, and disclosure.

The court found that the defendants had not purged their contempt and provided implausible explanations for their non-compliance.

As a penalty, the court granted judgment against the defendants, striking their ability to defend the action, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

The applicants and respondents own neighbouring cottage properties accessed by a shared laneway known as Brewers Close.

The respondents unilaterally relocated a portion of the laneway on their property and blocked the original route, preventing the applicants from traversing the full loop.

The applicants sought declarations confirming their deeded easements and an order requiring the respondents to restore the laneway.

The court interpreted the 1961 root deeds and found that valid easements were granted over the original location of the laneway.

The court ordered the respondents to restore the laneway for the applicants whose permission was never sought, and directed a trial on whether the other applicants had agreed to the relocation or were estopped from enforcing their rights.

In an application seeking a declaration that certain promissory notes were forged, the respondents brought a motion under Rule 30.04(2) to compel the applicants to produce the original promissory notes for inspection.

The applicants argued they did not possess the originals and that the motion was an abuse of process.

The Master granted the motion, ordering both parties to produce any original promissory notes in their possession or provide sworn evidence explaining their whereabouts, emphasizing the importance of verifying pivotal documents.

The defendant was successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations as an abuse of process.

The defendant sought costs of $21,804.92 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $17,750 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the plaintiff's late abandonment of several causes of action unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, but substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The plaintiff, Crown Crest Financial Corp., sued the defendant, a licensed paralegal, alleging he unlawfully obtained confidential business records and misused the information to recruit 14 claimants to sue Crown Crest in Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff advanced claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claims under Rule 21.01.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were not legally viable on public policy grounds, as they would interfere with the loyalty relationship between a litigant and their legal representative.

The court also found the claims were an abuse of process because they relied on privileged communications.

The claims were struck, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend to plead privacy torts.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation regarding negative online reviews posted by the defendant on Yelp, Google, and Twitter.

The defendant moved under Rule 21 to strike the claim as it was commenced more than two years after the plaintiffs discovered the posts.

The plaintiffs argued that the continuous availability of the posts on the internet constituted multiple publications, retriggering the limitation period each time they were accessed.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the limitation period begins to run when the internet defamation is first discovered, and struck the statement of claim as statute-barred.

Following the dismissal of two proposed class action certification motions and a Rule 21 motion regarding the unauthorized sale of hospital patient contact information to RESP sales representatives, the successful defendants sought costs totaling over $690,000.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, which had indemnified the plaintiffs, argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty of the legal issues and the significant public interest in the protection of health privacy.

The court agreed, finding that the case raised novel questions about commercial liability for purloined patient information and engaged important public policy issues.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

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 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 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 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.

The plaintiff brought a second contempt proceeding against the defendant for breaching the terms of a prior sentencing order arising from an earlier finding of contempt for violating a permanent injunction in a libel action.

The sentencing order required the defendant to remain in Ontario during the currency of a conditional sentence once the stay pending appeal expired.

The defendant remained in Europe beyond the date he was required to return, arguing that he attempted to change flights and believed reasonable efforts to comply were sufficient.

The court held that civil contempt requires knowledge of the order and intentional commission of the prohibited act, regardless of intent to defy the court.

Finding that the defendant knowingly and wilfully failed to return to Ontario despite having reasonable opportunities to do so, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in contempt.

Following a civil contempt conviction and the imposition of a conditional sentence of imprisonment with probation, the court addressed allegations that the contemnor had breached the conditional sentence order.

The court considered the appropriate procedure for dealing with alleged breaches of conditional sentences imposed for civil contempt.

It held that a breach constitutes a fresh contempt that may be pursued through a motion supported by evidence under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the Criminal Code conditional sentence breach framework may provide guidance for available remedies, the court held that the breach must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in civil contempt proceedings.

The court outlined procedural options, including a fresh contempt motion or investigation by the conditional sentence supervisor.

Supplementary endorsement addressing unresolved questions arising from a refusals and undertakings motion following examinations for discovery in a civil action.

The court clarified and completed earlier rulings by issuing directions regarding specific questions and document production obligations.

The respondent was ordered to provide various financial records, identification details, correspondence with third parties, and explanations of efforts to obtain certain documents within specified timelines.

Some requests were declined.

The endorsement also confirmed that any ordered production of correspondence excludes solicitor‑client privileged material.

The plaintiff successfully sued the defendant for defamation and obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from communicating about him.

The defendant breached the injunction by communicating with a Member of Parliament, claiming it was an act of conscience, and was found in civil contempt.

The court sentenced the defendant to a 90-day conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by 18 months' probation and 200 hours of community service, finding that jail was not necessary.

The defendant was also ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs of $24,377.41.