Hunter Norwick

The moving party, Fariborz Tavana, on behalf of Master Tech Inc., sought to set aside an order dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The underlying appeal related to a costs order and the dismissal of an action.

The Court of Appeal identified several impediments, including the dissolution of Master Tech Inc., Mr. Tavana's lack of authority to act for the corporation, and the absence of any reviewable error in the prior decision.

The court found no arguable merit to the proposed appeal and a consistent pattern of delay.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

The defendants had convinced the unsophisticated plaintiffs to withdraw $350,000 from their RRSPs for a fictitious start-up investment, but instead misappropriated the funds for their own benefit, including purchasing a heavily leveraged property.

The court granted default judgment, awarding compensatory damages that accounted for the lost funds and tax consequences, $75,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' highly reprehensible conduct, and $92,000 in full indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious abuse of the litigation process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to the defendants' failure to pay outstanding costs orders totaling $52,500.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which was denied as they failed to provide evidence or a reasonable explanation for their delay.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in a pattern of behaviour designed to abuse the court's process, delay the proceedings, and cause the plaintiffs to incur wasted costs.

Applying the principles from Atlas Copco, the court struck the statement of defence and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $18,500.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim and to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant lawyer in a professional negligence action.

The court granted the amendment on consent.

Regarding the refusals, the court applied the principle of proportionality, ordering the defendants to answer a narrowed set of questions concerning why certain evidence was not introduced at the underlying trial, while dismissing requests that were overly broad, irrelevant, or disproportionate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to disqualify the law firm Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP (AGB) from representing the defendants in a legal malpractice action.

The plaintiffs argued that their counsel had previously consulted with a partner at AGB about potentially acting as an expert witness for the plaintiffs, during which confidential information was allegedly shared.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the discussion was brief, general in nature, and did not involve the disclosure of confidential information attributable to a solicitor-client relationship that could prejudice the plaintiffs.

This is an appeal from a Master's order removing Paul Starkman and Starkman Barristers LLP as lawyers of record for the plaintiff/appellant, 8657181 Canada Inc., on the basis that Starkman was likely to be a material witness in the litigation.

The underlying action was a solicitor's negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against its former lawyers.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Master's decision that Starkman's dual role as advocate and likely witness on issues of mitigation and damages created an irreconcilable conflict, impairing the administration of justice.

This motion concerned the immediate disclosure of a settlement agreement between a plaintiff and one of several co-defendants in a deceit action.

The plaintiff, Roger Poirier, settled with defendant Jerry Friedberg, but failed to immediately disclose the settlement terms to the remaining co-defendants, Jeremy Logan, Hilary Goldstein, and Buchli Goldstein LLP.

The co-defendants brought a motion to dismiss Poirier's action as an abuse of process, arguing that the settlement fundamentally altered the litigation's adversarial orientation.

The court granted the motion, holding that the settlement, which included Friedberg providing an affidavit vetted by plaintiff's counsel, significantly changed the litigation landscape, and the delay in disclosure constituted an abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the action.