Charles Daniel Wolski

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion for a stay of a case management direction pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The case management judge had ordered that the parties were not required to exchange affidavits of documents prior to a focused summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the three branches of the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court held there was no serious issue to be tried regarding the discretionary case management order, no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the action to move forward.

The plaintiff sought reconsideration of a costs order arising from a successful motion by the defendant to strike numerous paragraphs of a class action statement of claim.

After the Court of Appeal partially allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and directed reconsideration of costs, the motion judge fixed costs at $75,000 in the cause.

Following a further reopening of the reconsideration due to overlooked submissions, the plaintiff argued that he had been the successful party and that the court had improperly counted paragraphs to assess divided success.

The court rejected this argument, holding that both parties achieved substantial success on the interlocutory motion and that costs in the cause remained appropriate.

The defendant’s request for an offsetting award related to appeal costs was also denied.

Following a successful appeal restoring certain pleadings in a proposed class action against an insurer, the Court reconsidered a prior costs award relating to a pleadings motion.

The original motion had struck numerous paragraphs and several causes of action, but the Court of Appeal later restored portions of the pleading and certain claims.

On reconsideration, the court found that success on the pleadings motion was divided: the defendant had properly challenged non‑compliant pleadings while the plaintiff preserved several causes of action.

Exercising its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs of the motion at $75,000 and ordered that the costs be in the cause rather than payable immediately.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged breach of a settlement agreement, civil conspiracy, and interference with economic relations arising from the defendants' implementation of new real estate rules that effectively prohibited the plaintiffs' flat-fee brokerage model.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded all necessary elements for breach of contract, predominant purpose conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, and that the individual defendants could be held personally liable despite being officers or directors of the corporate defendants, as the pleadings alleged they acted maliciously, outside their authority, and for their own personal business interests.