Geoffrey Adair

The applicant law firm brought a motion seeking directions to assess all legal accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, including those rendered to predecessor counsel between 2012 and 2018.

The respondent argued that only its final account rendered to the applicant was subject to assessment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that under the Solicitors Act, the applicant lacked standing to assess the prior accounts as it was neither a client, a party chargeable, nor a party who had paid those accounts.

Following a Court of Appeal order, the Superior Court of Justice conducted a trial of an issue to determine the value of the plaintiff's townhouse as a two-storey unit versus a three-storey unit as of December 2, 2014.

The plaintiff had purchased the unit believing it was three storeys, but the third floor was illegally built into the common element space.

The court evaluated competing expert appraisal evidence, ultimately preferring the plaintiff's expert who conducted a thorough inspection and appropriately applied the direct comparison approach.

The court fixed the plaintiff's damages for the loss of the third floor at $465,000.

The defendants sought costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in an action seeking specific performance of a purported oral commercial lease.

The court had previously determined that the matter could not be fairly resolved on summary judgment and directed that it proceed to an expedited trial.

In determining costs, the court considered that a significant portion of the defendants’ preparation and cross-examinations would benefit the upcoming trial and should not be fully compensated at this stage.

The court therefore limited the recoverable costs to reasonable amounts for the motion itself.

Specific costs were fixed for each group of defendants’ counsel, with limited disbursements allowed.

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief restraining a shareholder from selling shares of her holding company that indirectly owned shares in a family‑controlled corporation, and from disclosing corporate financial information.

The defendants brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim and sought partial summary judgment on a counterclaim seeking various corporate governance orders under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court held that although the separation agreement did not expressly restrict sales of the holding company shares, an implied term prevented either party from disposing of their interests in the holding companies without the other’s consent.

A permanent injunction was granted preventing the sale of the holding company shares without consent.

The court rejected restrictions on the shareholder’s access to financial statements but granted limited corporate governance relief including annual meetings, financial statement delivery, and a trust accounting.

In a national class action by terminated GM dealers against GMCL and their counsel, Cassels Brock & Blackwell (CBB), CBB brought third party claims against out-of-province local lawyers who provided independent legal advice to the dealers.

The out-of-province third parties brought motions to stay or dismiss the claims for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction under the fourth Van Breda presumptive connecting factor because the Wind-Down Agreements, which required the independent legal advice, were made in Ontario and were sufficiently connected to the dispute.

The court also found Ontario to be the most appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside an order that required the plaintiff to undergo two defence neuropsychological examinations.

The original order was made on the assumption that the defendants were adverse in interest.

It was subsequently discovered that the defendants had entered into a secret settlement agreement ending all adversity between them six months prior to the order.

The court found that the failure to disclose the agreement altered the landscape of the litigation.

The court varied the original order to permit only a single neuropsychological examination, finding that allowing two examinations by experts in the same field for non-adverse defendants was improper.

The court declined to exclude both reports entirely, finding that such a consequence would be disproportionate, but awarded the plaintiffs full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, a professional hockey player, was seriously injured by the defendant during a game.

The plaintiff sued the defendant and the team owners, alleging vicarious and direct liability.

The defendant issued a third party claim against the head coach.

The defendants and third party subsequently entered into a secret settlement agreement that dismissed the cross-claims and third party claim, and apportioned liability among them.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel production of the settlement agreement.

The court granted the motion, holding that the agreement changed the landscape of the litigation and must be disclosed to ensure trial fairness, regardless of whether settlement privilege is a class privilege or determined on a case-by-case basis.