David Keith Alderson

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to deliver a signed release.

The motion judge had held that releasing an individual partner's 'agents' also released his law firm from vicarious liability for his conduct.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that while a partner is an agent of the firm under the Partnership Act, the firm is not generally an agent of the individual partner.

The appeal was allowed in part to permit the appellant to plead that the law firm was vicariously liable for the partner's conduct.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a case management master requiring them to post additional security for costs in complex civil litigation.

The plaintiffs were non-residents of Ontario and did not claim impecuniosity, but argued that the strength of their claims justified denying security for costs.

The court held that the master applied the wrong legal standard by requiring the plaintiffs to show an "overwhelming likelihood of success" rather than the correct standard of a "good chance of success" when assessing the merits under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because this constituted an error of law, the appeal was allowed in part and the matter was remitted to the case management master for reconsideration using the proper standard.

These consolidated appeals addressed the interpretation and application of the amended summary judgment regime under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal held that summary judgment may be granted not only where claims or defences are without merit or the parties agree, but also where the motion judge can achieve a full appreciation of the evidence and issues required to make dispositive findings on the motion record, possibly supplemented by limited oral evidence.

The court articulated the “full appreciation” test, confirmed that the standard of review on whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial is correctness, and explained the proper use of the new powers to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, draw inferences, and hear oral evidence on discrete issues.

Applying those principles, the court dismissed the Combined Air, Misek, and Parker appeals, dismissed the Mauldin appeal, and allowed the Bruno appeal by setting aside summary judgment and dismissing the motion.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision upholding an Assessment Officer's assessment of legal fees.

The Assessment Officer discounted the time of two senior lawyers because their dockets were not served in compliance with the Evidence Act and the lawyers did not attend the hearing, depriving the client of the opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Assessment Officer's decision or the reviewing judge's consideration.

The appellant objected to the involvement of the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest, and sought to have counsel removed.

The Divisional Court declined to make the order, noting that the objection was raised late, the lower court had already found no conflict, the quantum in issue was very small, and requiring the respondent to retain new counsel would cause undue delay and expense.

The appellant, Robert Hryniak, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect his appeal from a summary judgment finding he defrauded the respondents.

The respondents opposed and brought cross-motions to lift the stay pending appeal and for security, citing concerns that the appellant was dissipating assets, specifically his matrimonial home.

The Court of Appeal analyzed the test for extending time, including a detailed review of the merits of the appeal concerning the newly amended Rule 20 summary judgment powers.

The Court granted the extension of time but, to prevent prejudice and asset dissipation, imposed strict terms requiring the appellant to post a $950,000 letter of credit and provide an undertaking not to encumber assets.

The respondents' cross-motions were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating they agreed with the reasons of the motion judge.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

Costs of the appeal and a related appeal were awarded to the respondents in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.