Eitan Samuel Kadouri

The moving defendants sought an order staying the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement with other defendants (Catlin Canada Inc., The Regional Municipality of York, and The Regional Municipality of Durham).

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend its Statement of Claim to reflect the settlement and limit claims against non-settling defendants to their several share of liability.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the partial settlement did not entirely change the litigation landscape in a way that significantly altered the dynamics, and that the disclosure made was sufficient given the circumstances.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to amend was granted.

The law firm Teplitsky, Colson LLP sued its former clients, the Seiderers, for unpaid legal fees and other claims (breach of contract, misrepresentation, deceit, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, and a charging order/lien), after the Seiderers initiated a bill assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The law firm moved to stay the assessment and for leave to prosecute its action nunc pro tunc.

The Seiderers cross-moved to stay the law firm's action pending the assessment.

The court found no genuine dispute about the retainer that would oust the assessment officer's jurisdiction, concluding the core dispute was about the quantum of fees.

The court dismissed the law firm's motion and granted the Seiderers' cross-motion, staying the law firm's action pending the assessment, and ordered the Seiderers to disclose and pay settlement funds into court.

The plaintiffs, Magnotta Winery Corporation, sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit responding to evidence from a Rule 39.03 examination of an LCBO employee.

The LCBO opposed, arguing that the plaintiffs had already cross-examined an adverse party's deponent and that the evidence was irrelevant to its Rule 21.01(b) motion.

The court, applying Rule 1.04(2) by analogy to Rule 39.02(2) and the four-part test from First Capital Realty Inc., found the evidence relevant, responsive, and that no non-compensable prejudice would result, and that the plaintiffs had an adequate explanation.

Leave was granted, and the LCBO's cross-motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' factum was dismissed.