David Capra

A non-lawyer, K. Drizen, brought a motion under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to represent the plaintiff corporation, Glycobiosciences Inc. The court had previously adjourned the motion to allow Mr. Drizen to file updated materials regarding corporate authority and financial status.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court granted leave, finding it to be in the interests of justice, but explicitly stated that no finding was made regarding Glyco's impecuniosity.

The applicant sought court approval for a $935,000 accident benefits settlement with the respondent insurer, as required by the insurer due to concerns about the applicant's capacity to manage property.

Despite a prior capacity assessment, the court expressed concerns about the evidence supporting the applicant's capacity and the sufficiency of the record under Rule 7.08 regarding the settlement's best interests.

The court ordered an updated capacity assessment for the applicant, with the report to be filed, and maintained the condition for court approval of the settlement pending further order.

The applicants sought to maintain an interlocutory injunction enjoining a former employee and his new company from soliciting clients.

The court found that the applicants continued to be at risk of irreparable harm from the loss of goodwill and business.

The injunction was maintained but amended to prohibit direct solicitation for a one-year period while allowing the respondents to accept unsolicited work from the applicants' clients.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent on appeal sought costs of $8,218.80.

The court noted that the respondent's offer to settle was reasonable and less favourable than the final outcome.

However, balancing this with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the factors under Rule 57, the court found the claimed amount excessive.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,500 for fees, plus HST and disbursements.

Following an appeal, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court considered the respondent's reasonable offers to settle, which were less favourable than the final outcome, alongside the Rule 57 factors.

Finding the claimed amount of $8,218.80 excessive, the court fixed costs at $6,500 for fees plus HST and $386.46 for disbursements.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $5,000 in general damages and $3,000 in punitive damages following an altercation at a hockey arena.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding he acted out of revenge, in rejecting his claim of self-defence, and in the damages awarded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant was motivated by revenge and was not acting in self-defence, and that the damages awards were appropriate and supported by the evidence.

The appellant, David Simms, appealed a Small Claims Court decision that found him liable for damages.

The appeal raised four issues: whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant's conduct was motivated by revenge for his son, whether the judge erred in rejecting the defence of self-defence, and appeals against the awards of punitive damages ($3000) and general damages ($5000).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on any of the issues, as they were supported by evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his action based on absolute privilege and declaring him a vexatious litigant.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that the alleged statements were protected by absolute privilege and that the appellant had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.