Craig J. Allen

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages and an accounting based on reciprocal profit-sharing agreements related to wind farm projects, alleging the defendants failed to remit his share of proceeds from a $30 million sale to China Longyuan.

The defendants opposed, arguing no payment obligation was triggered and that the action was statute-barred or prejudiced by delay.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding the record incomplete for quantum determination and corporate defendant liability.

However, the court also dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss the action, ruling that the profit-sharing obligations were triggered and rejecting the limitation period and prejudice arguments.

The case was ordered to proceed to trial with specific directions for discovery and mediation, and certain material facts were deemed undisputed.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action sought an extension of time for discoveries.

The defendant Dr. Tayfour cross-moved for dismissal for delay or a stay until costs were paid.

The court dismissed the defendant's motions, finding that the plaintiff's delays were not inordinate or inexcusable, and there was no substantial risk of an unfair trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, setting new timelines for discoveries and trial, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs of the motion.

This protracted litigation involved a family dispute over a commercial property, with plaintiffs (minority shareholders and creditors) alleging oppression and conspiracy against defendants (majority shareholders, directors, and related entities).

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants engaged in self-dealing and unlawful acts to deprive them of their beneficial ownership and profits.

The court dismissed both the oppression and conspiracy claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their reasonable expectations were violated or that an unlawful conspiracy occurred.

The court noted the plaintiffs' own conduct demonstrated a lack of regard for the corporation's welfare and a failure to protect their interests.

A counterclaim by one of the defendants was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to adjourn an eight‑week civil trial scheduled on the running list while appeals were pending concerning a refusal to amend the statement of claim and to admit late expert valuation reports.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, arguing the appeals would not materially affect the trial and proposing procedural alternatives such as hearing evidence and awaiting appellate outcomes or bifurcating liability and damages.

Applying the principles governing adjournments, including the objective of deciding matters on their substantive merits and considerations of prejudice and fairness, the court found the pending appeals could significantly affect the pleadings and expert evidence at trial.

The court concluded that proceeding before those issues were resolved risked inefficient and potentially unfair proceedings.

The trial was therefore adjourned pending the appellate process.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking removal of defence counsel on the basis that counsel’s spouse had previously conducted a counselling session with the plaintiff.

After learning of the litigation, the spouse transferred the file and destroyed correspondence from the plaintiff.

The court held there was no solicitor‑client relationship between the plaintiff and defence counsel and no evidence that confidential information had been improperly disclosed.

The evidence demonstrated that the spouse acted professionally and there was no breach of professional conduct rules.

Given the strong right of parties to retain counsel of their choice, the motion to remove counsel was dismissed.