G. Black

The Receiver of a deceased personal injury lawyer's professional corporation brought a motion seeking to impose a 'Sliding Fee Structure' on new counsel who took over the deceased lawyer's client files.

The Receiver argued this was necessary to efficiently realize on the estate's interest in the files.

The court dismissed the request to impose the fee structure, finding it would inappropriately override the clients' statutory rights under the Solicitors Act to receive and assess a bill.

However, the court ordered new counsel to provide the Receiver with 'Determinable Information' about the files to assist the Receiver in rendering accounts, subject to a privilege protocol.

The applicant, Dirk Plate, sought an order to be tried separately from his co-accused, Paul Caron, on charges of fraud and theft arising from an alleged $20 million kickback scheme.

The Crown alleged a common criminal enterprise, invoking the Carter rule for the admissibility of evidence.

The court balanced the factors under the interests of justice test, including the truth-seeking function, judicial economy, and potential prejudice.

The court found that a joint trial was the best way to assess witness credibility and avoid inconsistent findings, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a real likelihood of injustice if tried jointly.

The application for severance was dismissed.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default and dismiss or stay an Ontario action arising from a motor vehicle collision in Pennsylvania on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Pennsylvania was the more appropriate forum.

Applying the framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that a real and substantial connection existed because one alleged joint tortfeasor was resident in Ontario and the plaintiff claimed inseparable damages against multiple defendants.

The court further held that the moving defendants failed to demonstrate that Pennsylvania was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, particularly given that most witnesses and the plaintiff’s damages evidence were located in Ontario.

The motions to dismiss or stay the action were therefore dismissed, although the noting in default against the moving defendants was set aside on consent.