C. Sinclair

Following successful summary judgment motions by two lawyers dismissing the counterclaims against them in a mortgage enforcement action, the court determined costs.

The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim were ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to each lawyer on a partial indemnity basis, as the lawyers should not have been made parties to the action and incurred unnecessary legal expenses.

Following a successful summary judgment motion in a professional negligence action against a lawyer, the plaintiff sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the discretionary framework for awarding costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the principles of fairness, indemnity, and access to justice.

The court rejected arguments for both full and substantial indemnity costs, finding no vexatious litigation conduct or reprehensible behaviour by the defendant despite breaches of professional obligations in the underlying transaction.

Given the straightforward nature of the proceeding and the plaintiff’s partial success, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant, a lawyer, for outstanding loans.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant acted as her lawyer, breached his duty of care by acting in a conflict of interest, borrowed money from her, and failed to disclose material facts about the borrowers' insolvency.

The court found a solicitor-client relationship existed and that the defendant breached his duty of care.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish negligence in these circumstances.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amounts of the loans, but the claim against LawPRO was dismissed as it was not a party to the proceedings.

The applicant, a former member of the Labourers' Union, sought an order permitting him to make claims against the union's Benefit Trust or a return of his Dollar Bank Balance after being expelled for violating a dual union policy.

He also claimed the trustees breached their fiduciary duties.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant ceased to be a beneficiary upon expulsion, had no right to a distribution of the notional dollar bank account, and that the trustees did not breach their fiduciary duties by adopting or enforcing the dual union policy.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining union members from blockading its premises and engaging in intimidation and other unlawful conduct during a labour dispute.

Evidence established that picketers blocked trucks carrying materials from entering or leaving the employer’s facility and intimidated employees who continued working at residential construction sites.

The court held that picketing is lawful only when it constitutes communication and not obstruction or blockade.

The deliberate obstruction of property access and threats against workers constituted tortious and unlawful conduct, satisfying the requirements for interlocutory relief.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring the employer.

An interlocutory injunction was granted establishing an ingress/egress protocol and prohibiting tortious and unlawful conduct by union members.

In CCAA proceedings, the debtor companies sought approval of a debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing facility and a super-priority DIP lenders’ charge ranking ahead of other encumbrances, including potential pension-related claims.

Two unions opposed the motion, arguing that granting super priority would undermine fiduciary duties owed to pension plan beneficiaries and that the evidentiary record was insufficient to justify the relief.

The court held that the statutory requirements under s. 11.2 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act were satisfied and that DIP financing was necessary to maintain operations and conduct a sales or restructuring process.

Applying the doctrine of federal paramountcy, the court found that the CCAA could override conflicting provincial pension legislation where necessary to avoid bankruptcy and facilitate restructuring.

The DIP facility and super-priority charge were approved.

The applicants, Timminco Limited and Bécancour Silicon Inc., sought orders in their CCAA proceedings to suspend special payments to their pension plans, grant super priority to Administration and D&O Charges over provincial pension deemed trusts, approve Key Employee Retention Plans (KERPs), and seal the KERP details.

The unions opposed the super priority and suspension of pension payments, arguing it violated provincial pension legislation and fiduciary duties.

The court granted the motion, applying the doctrine of paramountcy to find that enforcing the provincial pension obligations would force the companies into bankruptcy and frustrate the CCAA restructuring.

The court also approved the KERPs and sealed the confidential supplement.