Douglas LaFramboise

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash an appeal brought by the respondents (defendants in the original action) on jurisdictional grounds.

The appellant (plaintiff) sought to appeal an interlocutory order from the Superior Court of Justice that removed his counsel of record.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that an order for the removal of counsel is interlocutory and must be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the motion to quash the appeal was granted, and costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The plaintiff, Sylvia Zwaan, brought an action seeking the return of $36,200, alleging the defendant Douglas Laframboise unlawfully converted a cheque belonging to her by depositing it into his personal account.

She also sought general and punitive damages.

The defendants admitted the deposit but denied unlawful conversion.

The court found Laframboise unlawfully converted the funds by depositing the cheque into his personal account without authorization and later denying knowledge of its whereabouts.

The court awarded the plaintiff the $36,200 plus pre-judgment interest and $50,000 in punitive damages, dismissing the claim against DDH Law Firm.

The defendant, Cozy Corner Bedding Inc., appealed a summary judgment that dismissed its counterclaim for equitable set-off and granted judgment to the plaintiff, 3113736 Canada Ltd. (Valle Foam), for unpaid invoices.

Cozy Corner alleged overcharging due to a price-fixing scheme.

The motion judge had ruled the counterclaim was barred by a class action release and lacked sufficient evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that an exception in the class action release preserved the right to pursue claims in insolvency proceedings, including equitable set-off under s. 21 of the CCAA.

The Court also found the motion judge erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence of overcharging, noting Valle Foam's own admissions regarding overcharge percentages.

The summary judgment was set aside, and the matter was directed to trial.

The moving party sought to set aside or stay an ex parte order granting summary judgment and specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale concerning real property.

The court examined whether the order had been properly obtained under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after the moving party allegedly failed to file responding materials.

The court found that proper notice of the earlier motion had not been given to the solicitor of record and that the basis for the ex parte summary judgment order did not exist.

Given the procedural irregularities and the absence of a hearing on the merits of the crossclaim, it would be unjust to allow the order to stand.

The ex parte order was therefore set aside, subject to terms allowing the summary judgment motion to be re-scheduled and addressing the status of affidavits filed in the interim.