Hailey Abramsky

The defendants (Trinity) moved for an order requiring the plaintiff (CSMI) to produce documents relating to a real estate development.

CSMI consented to production, but the National Capital Commission (NCC), a non-party, sought enhanced confidentiality protections for the documents.

The court rejected the NCC's proposed two-tier confidentiality order, finding it overbroad and unsupported by evidence demonstrating that the existing implied undertaking, deemed undertaking rule, and confidentiality protocol were insufficient.

The court granted the motion on the terms proposed by Trinity.

The plaintiff requested clarification regarding the scope of an order compelling production of documents.

The court had previously found a joint retainer existed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

The court clarified that as between joint venture parties, communications with the jointly retained lawyer relating to the subject matter of the joint venture are not privileged, even if the communications involved matters where the parties' interests were adverse or concerned withdrawing from the joint venture.

The applicant law firm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully enforcing an arbitration award against the respondents.

The respondents argued that the applicant, as a self-represented law firm, was only entitled to nominal costs because it failed to provide evidence of lost opportunity costs or distinguish between client time and counsel time.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding no egregious conduct to warrant substantial indemnity costs and applying appellate principles to award only nominal costs of $5,525.47.

The applicant law firm sought to enforce an arbitral costs award of $130,485 against its former clients following an arbitration assessing legal accounts.

The respondent clients brought a cross-application to set aside the award under s. 46(1)3 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, or alternatively for leave to appeal under s. 45(1).

The court dismissed the cross-application, finding the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine costs and that the alleged errors regarding the departure from the normal costs paradigm were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court granted the application to enforce the costs award.

The plaintiff sued corporate and individual defendants for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale regarding a retail development.

The individual defendants moved to strike the claim against them under Rule 21.01(1)(b), arguing that as corporate officers, they could not be held personally liable for inducing the corporation to breach its contract without allegations of separate tortious conduct.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding the pleadings lacked necessary particulars of bad faith or separate interests.

However, the court also granted the plaintiff's cross-motion under Rule 26.01 to amend the statement of claim, as there was no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The defendants moved to set aside a Mareva injunction granted four years prior, citing delay and new expert evidence.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment or to strike the defendants' statement of defence in a complex fraud action involving a factoring company.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the delay was largely attributable to their own failure to produce documents and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, concluding that the extensive conflicting circumstantial evidence and credibility issues required a full trial, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate.

The motion to strike the defence was dismissed as premature.