Gregory M. Sidlofsky

The appellant appealed an order regarding the interpretation of a settlement agreement term stating a mortgage 'will be held in escrow'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the parties intended the mortgage would not be effective and would not create an interest in land unless and until there was a default.

As no default occurred, the bank had nothing to assign to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision setting aside an unopposed judgment for the passing of estate accounts.

The lower court had set aside the judgment because the applicant's counsel failed to disclose relevant correspondence agreeing to a stay and took advantage of opposing counsel's slip in not filing a notice of objection.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and agreeing that the applicant's counsel engaged in sharp practice by breaching obligations to the court and opposing counsel.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory injunction that prohibited them from publishing any material identifying the plaintiffs on the internet and ordered them to delete all references to the plaintiffs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the injunction was overly broad and an unwarranted restraint on freedom of expression.

The court also held that two of the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief because they failed to file affidavit evidence of irreparable harm, failed to provide an undertaking as to damages, and refused to attend examinations.

The injunction was set aside, replaced only by a narrow consent order regarding one specific article concerning one plaintiff.

The $35,000 costs award against the defendants was also set aside.

The appellant bank transferred funds from a deceased customer's account to her son without verifying the will or notifying the daughter, who held a power of attorney.

The daughter successfully litigated the validity of the will and ownership of the funds in Kuwait courts.

She then sued the bank in Ontario and obtained summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the bank's appeal, holding that the bank was a privy in interest to the son and was bound by the Kuwait judgment through issue estoppel, preventing it from relitigating the ownership of the funds.

The respondents requested an adjournment of an appeal of a costs order due to the death of one of the co-respondents.

The majority of the Divisional Court denied the adjournment, noting that the deceased's estate had no interest in the litigation, the request was for an indefinite period, and the case had been pending for a considerable time.

Molloy J. dissented, stating she would have granted the adjournment to ensure the rights of the deceased's estate were protected.

The appellants appealed an order of a motion judge that allowed the respondent solicitor to charge a $60,000 premium on top of their hourly rate after successfully negotiating a settlement.

The assessment officer had originally denied the premium because the fee agreement did not contemplate it, the solicitor faced no risk of non-payment, and the solicitor confirmed they would charge their hourly rate even after becoming aware of the windfall.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the assessment officer correctly considered all relevant factors and that the motion judge erred in varying the report.

The appellant, an in-house corporate counsel, appealed a trial judge's order making him jointly and severally liable for $140,000 in costs awarded against his employer and related companies.

The trial judge had found that the appellant shared a common financial interest with his clients through an employment agreement, placing him in a conflict of interest with his duty to the court and his clients.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the employment agreement did not actually give the appellant a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if such a financial interest existed, it would align with the clients' interests rather than conflict with them, and would not breach the lawyer's duty to the court absent unprofessional conduct in the litigation.

The costs order against the appellant was set aside.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a summary judgment motion, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought costs on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, while the appellant argued costs should be in the cause due to the unique circumstances and ongoing litigation in Kuwait.

The Divisional Court agreed with the motions judge that the costs claimed were excessive and ordered that the costs of the leave to appeal motion and the appeal be fixed and payable in the cause.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment against the respondent bank.

The dispute involved funds in a bank account originally owned by the appellant's mother, which the bank had transferred to the appellant's brother.

A Kuwaiti court had ruled that the funds belonged to the appellant.

The Divisional Court found that the Kuwaiti judgment was final and that the bank was a privy to the brother, meaning it would be bound by the foreign judgment through issue estoppel.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant's pleadings had not been amended to properly base the claim on the foreign judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and issued an endorsement on costs.

The respondents were collectively awarded costs of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable by the Confederation of National Trade Unions (CSN) and La Régie Des Rentes Du Québec.

The appellant resort appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for seven days for allegedly serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board's decision.

The Court found no evidence that the appellant's employees supplied liquor to the intoxicated patron, noting the drinks were ordered by another guest.

Furthermore, the Court held the Board failed to properly interpret 'permitted drunkenness', as the appellant's staff had taken reasonable steps to deny service and remove the patron shortly after her arrival.

The appellants, Confederation of National Trade Unions and La Régie Des Rentes Du Québec, appealed an order staying the obligation of Slater Steel to file an actuarial report and relieving the company and its directors from any resulting obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on evidence that further employer contributions were not due until the valuation report was filed.

The Court also noted that other parties had acted in reliance on the stay order.

In an addendum regarding costs following an appeal, the judge considered the submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The judge determined that the disposition of costs should be left to the full panel of the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment against the defendant bank.

The underlying action involved the bank transferring funds from the plaintiff's deceased mother's account to her brother, despite a Kuwaiti court ruling that the funds belonged to the plaintiff.

The motion judge had dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the Kuwaiti decision established the facts pleaded.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to look behind the foreign judgment's reasoning.

The plaintiffs initially succeeded on a motion to bifurcate a class proceeding trial.

The defendants obtained leave to appeal that order.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs abandoned the appeal, proposing that no costs be awarded.

The defendants rejected this proposal and brought a motion to fix costs for the initial motion, the leave to appeal motion, the abandoned appeal, and the current motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, awarding them costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $17,971.75.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a judgment for costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle to justify granting leave.

Leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,500.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision finding a concluded settlement between the parties for $12,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a settlement, noting that correspondence confirmed the agreement and the appellant's former counsel conceded the amount.

However, the Court varied the order to direct that the $12,000 settlement amount, plus accrued interest, be paid to the appellant out of money held in court.

The respondent's cross-appeal for costs of the motion was dismissed, and no costs were awarded for the appeal.

The tenant leased a rental unit but later moved to a new home, allowing two friends to move into the unit without the landlord's consent.

The tenant also constructed a basement bedroom without a building permit to use during occasional overnight stays.

The landlord applied to evict the unauthorized occupants and terminate the tenancy.

The Court of Appeal held that the tenant had transferred occupancy to his friends and that the illegal construction of the bedroom was a serious illegal act justifying termination of the tenancy.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against the respondents and a real estate agent.

The appellants argued that a release signed in blank was only to be used if a first real estate transaction did not close, alleging the two transactions were linked.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the parol evidence rule precluded evidence of the alleged linkage, as the documentation contained no such linkage and was reviewed by the appellants' lawyers.

The claim against the real estate agent, also based on the alleged linkage, was similarly dismissed.

Borins J.A. dissented, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the release's provenance and the agent's alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant sought to set aside a certificate assessing trial and appeal costs on the basis that the assessment officer relied on insufficient documentary support, particularly the absence of time dockets.

The court held that the authority relied on by the appellant concerning unsupported lump-sum fee claims arose from materially different facts involving uncertainty over retainer and duplication of legal services.

Applying the deferential standard governing appellate review of cost assessments, the court found no error in principle and no gross impropriety in the amounts assessed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.