Christopher Stienburg

The Law Society of Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision that remitted a costs decision back to the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division.

The respondent, a lawyer, had successfully defended against professional misconduct charges and sought costs against the Law Society under Rule 25.01 for 'wasted costs'.

The Hearing Division denied costs, but the Divisional Court found the investigation was procedurally unfair and one-sided.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Law Society's appeal, holding that while the Divisional Court erred in applying a procedural fairness framework, the Hearing Division erred in principle by taking a piecemeal approach to the Law Society's conduct and applying an overly rigid standard for wasted costs.

The matter was properly remitted for a holistic assessment of whether the Law Society's conduct caused wasted costs.

This decision addresses a defendant's motion for relief concerning undertakings, refusals, and "under-advisements" in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court ruled on a preliminary issue to strike certain evidence filed by the plaintiff, striking an affidavit filed improperly but allowing other materials.

The primary focus was on the disclosure of the plaintiff's mental health records.

The court ordered that the plaintiff could redact identifying third-party information from the records, and that the redacted records be disclosed only to the defendant's counsel, not to the defendant directly, due to a demonstrated serious risk to the plaintiff's mental health.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding a published photo was not defamatory and in upholding the respondents' defence of responsible communication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the proper legal framework from Pointes Protection and Grant v. Torstar, and her conclusions were entitled to deference.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member for professional misconduct involving the sexual abuse of a student.

The member had previously been convicted of sexual exploitation under the Criminal Code for engaging in a sexual relationship with the student over several years.

The member pled guilty to the professional misconduct allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a written reprimand and the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate, as mandated by the Ontario College of Teachers Act for cases of sexual abuse.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving parties sought full indemnity costs of $141,573.04.

The court departed from the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs, finding the action lacked the hallmarks of a SLAPP, the plaintiff had substantial merit to her claim, and the moving parties had unnecessarily complicated the proceeding by initially pursuing summary judgment.

The court awarded the moving parties partial indemnity costs fixed at $55,603.21, matching the plaintiff's own partial indemnity costs calculation.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation action concerning publications about an illegal cannabis dispensary chain and its alleged connections to the plaintiff.

The court found the expression related to a matter of public interest.

While the plaintiff established substantial merit for some defamatory statements, the defendants successfully demonstrated a valid defence of responsible communication.

The court found the defendants' verification efforts diligent and the inclusion of statements justifiable.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The applicant purchaser sought the return of a $116,154.80 deposit paid for a pre-construction home after the respondent vendor terminated the agreement of purchase and sale.

The vendor alleged the purchaser breached the agreement by listing the property for an assignment sale on MLS and social media without consent.

The court found that while the MLS listing was a technical breach, the purchaser cured the default within the contractual five-day cure period after receiving notice.

The social media postings were found not to constitute a breach.

Consequently, the vendor's termination was invalid, and the purchaser was entitled to the return of all monies paid.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing an appeal from a summary judgment that had dismissed the appellant's action against the respondent University.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment in favor of the University but declined to award costs.

Following the successful appeal, the appellant sought costs of the summary judgment motion on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellant in the amount of $22,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, a middle ground between the appellant's claim of $40,669.71 and the University's submission of $15,480.45.

A doctoral student appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against a university for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The student alleged that his supervisory committee pressured him to transfer out of his Ph.D. program because members lacked expertise in his specialized research area and were unwilling to acquire it, and that they misled him about funding availability.

The motion judge found genuine issues of fact but dismissed the action as a matter of law, holding that academic matters should be resolved through the university's internal complaint process.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that courts have jurisdiction to entertain claims by students against universities for damages based on tort or breach of contract, even where the dispute arises from academic matters.

The remedy sought—damages—is indicative of jurisdiction, not whether the dispute is academic in nature.

The defendant, the University of Western Ontario, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff, a former Ph.D. student, alleged breach of contract and fiduciary duty due to inadequate supervision and misleading information about funding after his thesis supervisor died.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, on the basis that the plaintiff's complaints were academic issues that should have been resolved through the university's internal processes, subject to judicial review, rather than a civil action.

The court emphasized the university's expertise, the policy of judicial deference to academic decisions, and the more effective remedies available through internal university mechanisms.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer consideration of her human rights application on the basis that she intended to file a civil claim in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral because the applicant had not yet commenced her civil claim.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could renew her request if and when she commenced the civil claim, and reminded her of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code regarding concurrent proceedings.

In an addendum to a previous summary judgment decision, the plaintiff sought clarification on whether its professional negligence claim against the defendant lawyer and law firm was dismissed, and whether it was entitled to a $60,000 purchase price.

The court confirmed that the professional negligence claim was dismissed because it was pleaded as equivalent to the failed breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the purchase price because the underlying contract had been abandoned and repudiated by both parties.

A dispute arose between a commercial landlord and tenant concerning the tenant’s attempt to exercise a lease renewal option and alleged arrears of additional rent.

The landlord refused renewal and ultimately locked the tenant out, causing a planned sale of the restaurant business to collapse.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the tenant, awarding damages for loss of the business sale, arbitration and settlement expenses, the security deposit, and punitive damages, and dismissed the landlords’ counterclaim.

The landlords appealed on multiple grounds including refusal of an adjournment, improper notice of renewal, and alleged rent default.

The Court of Appeal rejected each ground and upheld the summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Flirty Girl Fitness Inc. (FGF), brought a summary judgment motion alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, conversion, and professional negligence against the defendants, including a co-founder sister, former corporate lawyers, and a new fitness company.

FGF claimed damages of $180,440.15 plus punitive damages.

The defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss all claims.

The court found that the co-founder sister, Krista Knee, acted in FGF's best interests to salvage the business by transferring assets to Hottie Body Boutique Inc. (HBB), which assumed FGF's significant debts and prepaid customer contracts.

The transaction was deemed fair and beneficial to FGF, despite some corporate governance irregularities and a minor breach of fiduciary duty by the sisters for not fully disclosing future personal ownership plans to passive shareholders, which caused no damage to FGF.

The court also found no breach of fiduciary duty or professional negligence by the corporate lawyer, David Epstein.

Consequently, the court dismissed FGF's action in its entirety, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain a former employee from soliciting and doing business with its existing customers.

The employee had resigned and started a competing business selling similar products.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the employee was not a fiduciary and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured the employee, as the injunction would deprive him of his primary ability to earn a living.

The motion was dismissed.