Eliezer Karp

The father brought a motion to change a 1998 child support order, seeking to terminate support entirely as all three children were allegedly independent adults.

The mother responded by seeking dismissal of the father's motion and requesting retroactive adjustments to the table amount of child support based on the father's increased income, as well as retroactive contributions to section 7 special expenses (braces, dental care, and post-secondary tuition).

The court found that the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by consistently failing to pay support as ordered, failing to disclose income increases, and refusing to contribute to special expenses despite having the means to do so.

The court determined that two of the three children remained eligible for support during certain periods and ordered retroactive adjustments to the table amount and contributions to section 7 expenses.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its summary judgment motion, which sought to declare mortgages granted by the respondent parents to their children as fraudulent conveyances.

The motion judge found good consideration for the mortgages and no intent to defraud, dismissing the action against the children.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the motion judge's factual findings were entitled to deference and rejecting the appellant's attempt to raise new claims on appeal.

Telecommunications companies sought leave to appeal certification orders permitting class proceedings concerning cellular phone billing practices.

The proposed class actions alleged that the defendants breached contracts, engaged in deceptive practices contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and were unjustly enriched by rounding call durations up to the nearest minute under plans described as billed “per minute.” The moving parties argued that individual contractual contexts prevented the existence of a common issue and that certification was therefore inappropriate.

The court held that the meaning of the contractual phrase “per minute billing” was a common issue capable of resolution across the class, particularly given the standardized and adhesive nature of the consumer contracts.

Leave to appeal was refused and the certification orders were left undisturbed.

The plaintiff sought costs following the dismissal of motions by the defendants to set aside Mareva and Anton Piller orders and to release frozen funds.

The underlying proceeding involved a large-scale insurance fraud scheme in which insured individuals allegedly submitted claims for therapy services that were never provided, splitting the proceeds with the defendants.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in reprehensible conduct both in their business dealings and throughout the litigation, including failing to comply with court schedules and engaging in unfair procedural tactics.

Applying the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $75,000 in fees plus $11,291.87 in disbursements and taxes.

Following earlier rulings on motions involving Mareva injunctions, fraudulent conveyance allegations, and summary judgment on promissory notes, the court determined the appropriate costs awards among multiple parties across two related actions.

Certain defendants who were unsuccessful targets of fraud allegations sought substantial indemnity costs after the claims against them were dismissed.

The court held that allegations of fraud justified substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs failed to establish the claims.

In the Klein action, the court balanced mixed success by awarding costs to both sides and setting them off.

In the Finkelstein action, substantial indemnity costs were awarded to certain defendants in the cause.

The plaintiffs brought motions arising from an ATM business dispute, unpaid unsecured promissory notes, and allegations that mortgages granted on a matrimonial home were fraudulent conveyances.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the promissory note claim or the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The court dissolved Mareva injunctions in both actions, finding the record did not satisfy the stringent test for pre-judgment asset-freezing relief.

The court granted summary judgment for $710,000 plus interest on the promissory notes against the business partners and their business entities, dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claims, and refused a certificate of pending litigation.

Consumers brought proposed class proceedings against wireless service providers alleging that the companies billed cellular calls by rounding up partial minutes to the next full minute without adequate disclosure.

The plaintiffs advanced claims in breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and unjust enrichment, seeking certification of national and provincial classes.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action and that there was some basis in fact for common issues regarding the interpretation of standardized contracts, alleged misrepresentations about available minutes, and the uniform rounding‑up practice.

The court also held that class proceedings were the preferable procedure given the large class size and relatively small individual claims.

The actions were certified as class proceedings with defined classes and common issues.

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

A child protection application brought by a child welfare society seeking temporary care and custody of two children (ages 12 and 9) from their parents.

The father opposed the motion and sought custody with society supervision, while the mother supported the society's position.

The court found that both children had suffered significant emotional harm due to high-conflict parenting, with evidence of parental alienation, emotional abuse, and the father's controlling behavior toward the children and mother.

The court determined that the children could not be adequately protected in either parent's care and ordered temporary placement with the society, with access discretionary to the society.

A payment order was imposed on both parents proportionate to their incomes.

Lawyers sought a declaration that their professional liability insurer owed a duty to defend them in an underlying negligence action arising from a client's failed business investment.

The insurance policy excluded coverage for claims related to investment advice unless the advice was a direct consequence of professional legal services.

Although the pleadings alone could potentially fall within the policy’s coverage for professional services, the policy contained a "notwithstanding" clause permitting the court to consider extrinsic evidence.

The evidence showed the lawyer provided investment advice before any professional legal services were rendered.

The court held the investment advice exclusion applied and the insurer reasonably denied coverage.

Following certification of a class proceeding alleging unpaid overtime by investment advisors, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought $575,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendant argued the award should not exceed $315,000.

The court outlined a structured methodology for certification-motion costs awards emphasizing transparency, historical averages, proportionality, and the Rule 57.01(1) factors.

After reducing the claim for excess fees and disbursements and considering historical cost award data and comparable cases, the court fixed costs at $290,000 all-inclusive payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against the defendant for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant argued that investment advisors were exempt from overtime provisions due to their managerial character or because their compensation provided a greater benefit.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against his former employer for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that investment advisors fall within the managerial or greater benefit exemptions.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The appellants appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against CIBC and CIBC World Markets for alleged misclassification of employees making them ineligible for overtime.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite an amended class definition, the issue of eligibility for overtime for Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors required individual, case-by-case determinations regarding their managerial or supervisory functions.

The appellants failed to establish a basis in fact that the job functions were sufficiently similar to be resolved as a common issue.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Expedia Inc. and Expedia Canada Corporation, alleging that the defendants wrongfully charged hidden service fees and undisclosed profits on hotel bookings.

The court certified the action against Expedia Inc. for breach of contract, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

However, the court declined to certify claims under the Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act, and dismissed all claims against Expedia Canada Corporation as it was not a contracting party.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding on behalf of York University students whose classes were disrupted by a 2008 strike, alleging breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the claims improperly interfered with the university's academic discretion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's conclusion that the claims were barred by academic discretion and that the pleadings were insufficient to establish a contractual or statutory cause of action.

In a proposed overtime misclassification class action against a financial institution and its affiliate, the plaintiffs brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings arising from cross‑examinations on affidavits filed for an upcoming certification motion.

The court balanced the need for a full evidentiary record against the proximity of the certification hearing and the burden of additional production.

Requests for a third‑party inspection of the defendants’ human resources system and certain historical records were refused as disproportionate or unnecessary at the certification stage.

However, several questions concerning the duties of investment advisors, associate investment advisors, and the rationale for overtime eligibility policies were ordered answered because they related to class definition and commonality issues.

Other questions relating to merits issues, irrelevant job descriptions, or hypothetical inquiries were not compelled.

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

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge and finding the appeal had no merit.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application for pre-certification production of automotive pricing information from a non-party, JATO Dynamics Ltd. The appellants argued the motion judge applied the wrong test under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ignored factors from the Ballard Estate decision.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge conducted an appropriate Rule 30.10 analysis and properly exercised his discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.