Eli Lederman

The defendant by counterclaim brought a motion for the production of due diligence documents related to a corporate acquisition, arguing they were relevant and that any solicitor-client privilege had been impliedly waived.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad request for acquisition due diligence was not relevant to the specific claims regarding a separate supply agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege, which had not been waived because the responding party did not put its reliance on legal advice at issue in its pleadings.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision declining to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 48.14 and instead imposing a timetable.

The underlying action involved a claim for indemnification from escrow funds following a share purchase agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master applied the correct two-part test from Kara v. Arnold, properly considered the contextual factors including the defendants' own delay in filing a statement of defence, and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the plaintiff had an adequate explanation for delay and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The plaintiff was successful on a status hearing motion to prevent the dismissal of its action for delay.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought $35,000, while the unsuccessful defendants sought $30,225.24, arguing the motion was only necessary due to the plaintiff's inaction.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, finding it was reasonable for them to compel the plaintiff to show cause and noting the plaintiff's primary explanation for the delay was inaccurate.

The defendants sought costs following their substantially successful motion to compel the production of documents over which the plaintiff claimed privilege.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be in the cause or that no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found that the defendants were overwhelmingly successful based on the number of documents ordered produced and the issues resolved.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $30,000 on a partial indemnity scale, payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion to compel production of documents from the file of the plaintiff's subrogating insurer and to examine a representative of the insurer.

The plaintiff claimed solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement privilege over the documents.

The court reviewed the documents and ordered production of those where the dominant purpose was claims assessment rather than litigation defence, and those where the settlement privilege exception applied.

The court also ordered the examination of the insurer's representative, finding the action was brought for the insurer's immediate benefit.

The applicants sought costs following a motion for the production of documents.

Both parties claimed success on the motion.

The court found that the applicants were substantially more successful, as the respondent's principal position was that no disclosure should be ordered, forcing the applicants to bring the motion.

The court awarded the applicants costs fixed at $11,500 on an all-inclusive basis, reflecting a reduction for their lack of success on an alternative argument.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement of a representative action under Rule 10.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning governance and alleged improprieties in transactions involving the outsourcing and reassumption of real estate asset management by a pension plan.

After extensive litigation, mediation, documentary disclosure, and a neutral fact‑finding process, a report concluded that the transactions were commercially reasonable and that no wrongdoing occurred, although transparency concerns had arisen.

The settlement recognized governance reforms implemented during the litigation and provided for dismissal of the action with reimbursement of the representative plaintiff’s legal costs.

Applying principles analogous to settlement approval under the Class Proceedings Act, the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the represented persons.

The settlement was approved and the action dismissed.