Duncan Boswell

In a family law proceeding involving cryptocurrency assets, the applicant brought a long motion regarding disclosure.

The respondents sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file an expert affidavit after having already cross-examined the applicant on her motion materials.

The court dismissed the request for leave, finding the respondents failed to show the evidence responded to a matter raised on cross-examination or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court also ruled on several refusals from questioning, ordering the respondents to answer some questions while upholding other refusals.

The applicant's motion for disclosure was dismissed, making the corporate respondents presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court found that the corporate respondents behaved unreasonably by relying on an inadmissible affidavit and failing to respond to the court's directions regarding their conduct.

As a result, the court discounted their partial indemnity costs by 25% and ordered the applicant to pay $7,500 in costs.

During a class action trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing mad cow disease, the defendant sought to read into evidence discovery transcripts from the current representative plaintiff, the deceased former representative plaintiff, and other class members.

The court denied the request to read in the current representative plaintiff's evidence, applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn, as the plaintiff had already testified and the evidence did not merely fill a gap.

The court also denied leave to read in the deceased former plaintiff's evidence under Rule 31.11(6) and (7), finding the excerpts to be of limited importance and lacking cross-examination.

However, the court permitted the defendant to read in discovery evidence from other class members, as it provided helpful real-world insight into the financial impact on different cattle producers.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of a lawyer's file, arguing she had an explicit or implicit solicitor-client relationship with him, or alternatively, that the respondents waived privilege.

The lawyer had acted for the respondent and the corporate respondents during a period when the parties were allegedly involved in a joint family venture involving cryptocurrency.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a solicitor-client relationship, as the few documents she relied on were insufficient to show she was led to believe he was her lawyer.

The court also found no evidence that the respondents waived privilege.

Although the motion was dismissed, the court struck significant portions of the respondent's affidavit for relying on inadmissible hearsay in breach of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for interim spousal support and disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her offer regarding spousal support and met her offer regarding native file format disclosure.

The applicant was awarded costs of $104,533 on a substantial recovery basis.

The corporate respondents were successful on a discrete issue regarding a server and were awarded costs of $12,600 on a partial indemnity basis, to be paid from the applicant's costs award.

During a common issues trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing the spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease), the plaintiff sought to admit eight foreign public records for the truth of their contents.

The defendant argued the documents should only be admitted to show the government's knowledge of them.

The court held that the documents, which included reports from the World Health Organization and the European Commission, met the criteria for the public documents exception under s. 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act and were admissible for the truth of their contents, though the court reserved judgment on the weight to be given to them.

The parties in a class action jointly sought an adjournment of the trial commencement to allow time to finalize settlement discussions.

The court granted the adjournment, moving the trial start date from February 1, 2021, to February 16, 2021, noting that no further adjournments would be granted.

The defendants in a 15-year-old class action regarding the federal government's response to the mad cow disease crisis brought a motion to adjourn the peremptory trial date of January 18, 2021, to September 2021.

They cited difficulties preparing due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the late delivery of supplementary expert reports by the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion for a lengthy adjournment, finding that the parties were well-resourced to conduct a virtual trial and that the late expert reports were responsive to the defendants' own late productions.

The trial commencement was postponed by two weeks to February 1, 2021, to allow for the completion of remaining pre-trial steps.

Following an appellate ruling that set aside a trial decision and declared a trust declaration void, the court was asked to determine costs after the original trial judge retired.

The successful plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $200,000, relying on findings that the defendant had engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with a loan transaction and a trust declaration.

The defendants argued that costs should be deferred pending the disposition of a counterclaim and challenged the scale and scope of the claimed costs.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were justified given the findings of dishonest conduct but deferred determination of most pre‑trial costs because the majority related to the outstanding counterclaim.

The court fixed immediate costs of $20,500 for trial attendance and preparation of cost submissions, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The defendants sought over $100 million in damages following a damages inquiry ordered after the plaintiffs wrongfully obtained ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders that shut down the defendants' lottery telemarketing business.

The court found that most of the financial losses and lost business opportunities were caused by an American Temporary Restraining Order that pre-dated the ex parte orders, not the ex parte orders themselves.

However, the court awarded $250,000 for the loss of an opportunity to transition the business in an orderly fashion, $1,000 for a seized cell phone, and $703,576 for legal expenses incurred in setting aside the orders and participating in the inquiry, for a total award of $954,576.