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.

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, 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.