Eric Hoffstein

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, who reside in South Korea.

The plaintiffs commenced an action seeking repayment of loans and a share of the equity from the sale of a property.

The court found that the defendants met their initial onus as the plaintiffs reside outside Ontario.

However, the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the onus by demonstrating that they are impecunious and that their claim is not devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The appellants, a law firm and its principal lawyer, appealed a motion judge's decision denying them a fee premium and reimbursement of disbursements for their representation of a catastrophically injured client under a disability.

During the appeal, the parties reached a settlement for a reduced fee premium and full disbursements.

The Court of Appeal approved the settlement, finding it was in the best interests of the person under a disability and fairly compensated the lawyers for their services and risk.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal two case management orders made in a guardianship application that had been ongoing for 2.5 years.

The applicant argued the case management judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to case manage an estate matter.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the court has inherent jurisdiction to control its own process and that the tests for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) were not met.

Following a costs endorsement, the applicant sought costs for preparing his costs submissions, arguing that his offers to settle the quantum of costs exceeded the costs ultimately awarded to the respondents.

The applicant relied on Rule 49.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the request, holding that while Rule 49 applies to motions, it does not apply to offers to settle the quantum of costs of a motion.

No costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for leave to appeal an order regarding a capacity examination, the respondents sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the appellant filed an unnecessarily voluminous 90-page factum, it did not create a significant additional burden.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $8,000 each for two respondents and $5,000 for the third, reflecting the moderate complexity of the issues and the principle of proportionality.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to require his parents to undergo capacity assessments and to allow him to examine his mother for discovery.

The underlying dispute involved the validity of powers of attorney executed by the mother, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision.

The court held that section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, rather than section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, governed the request for a capacity assessment, and that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the assessments and discovery.

The appellant advanced a commercial loan to the respondent with an effective annual interest rate exceeding 90 percent, violating the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The respondent sought a declaration that the agreement was illegal.

The application judge applied 'notional severance' to reduce the interest rate to the legal maximum of 60 percent.

The Court of Appeal reversed this, applying the traditional 'blue-pencil' test to strike out the interest provision entirely.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that notional severance is available as a remedy for statutory illegality under s. 347 and was appropriate in this case given the commercial context and the parties' intentions.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent was constructively dismissed when his employment contract was unilaterally changed from an indefinite hiring to a fixed-term contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on constructive dismissal, the requirement to assign a keyman insurance policy, the calculation of damages based on the previous contract, and the award of a Wallace extension.

The court also declined to order reimbursement for lieu time payments or an accounting for pension payments.