G. Adair

A law firm sued a former associate lawyer for $3 million, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and contract after he left to join a competing firm.

The firm sought a declaration that the departing lawyer was not entitled to compensation for unbilled work in progress (WIP) existing at the time of his departure.

The departing lawyer counterclaimed for his share of fees billed and collected post-departure.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the law firm's damages claim, finding the lawyer's actions constituted permissible planning and compliance with professional obligations, not competition.

The court also held that the oral compensation agreement entitled the departing lawyer to his share of fees on files he had carriage of, once those files were billed and collected, regardless of his departure.

The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation against a lawyer and the law firm with which she practiced in association.

The defendant law firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, arguing it was not vicariously liable for the lawyer's actions.

The court found that the lawyer was not a partner or employee of the firm, and the firm did not control her practice.

The firm's letterhead and marketing materials clearly indicated she was 'Practicing in Association not in Partnership'.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action against the law firm.

Following a successful motion enforcing a Canadian-recognized foreign judgment obtained against a foreign state and its agencies for terrorism-related conduct, the successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered whether the conduct of the foreign state justified elevated costs.

It held that substantial indemnity costs require reprehensible litigation conduct, not merely objectionable political or international conduct by a foreign state.

Because the defendants did not participate in the proceeding and simply ignored it, their conduct did not meet the threshold for elevated costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $15,456.05 were awarded as fair and reasonable under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Victims of terrorism sought enforcement in Ontario of U.S. judgments against a foreign state and its agencies following recognition of those judgments under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

The court considered the interaction between the JVTA, the State Immunity Act, and Ontario enforcement procedures.

It held that non‑diplomatic bank accounts and real property beneficially owned by the foreign state in Canada were exigible assets available to satisfy the recognized judgment.

The court ordered financial institutions to pay funds to the sheriff for distribution under provincial execution legislation and directed enforcement against two properties found to be beneficially owned by the foreign state.