Ian McBride

The defendants brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel and their law firm on the basis of a conflict of interest.

The defendant, Marc Lewis, had previously retained the same law firm for an employment matter with a former employer.

The court applied the MacDonald Estate test and found that the previous retainer was not sufficiently related to the current malfeasance action, and no relevant confidential information was imparted.

Furthermore, the law firm had implemented an ethical wall.

The motion to disqualify counsel was dismissed.

The objectors, the widower and daughter of the deceased, brought a motion for directions under Rule 75.06 challenging the validity of the deceased's 2018 wills on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the applicant son.

The court found the objectors met the minimal evidentiary threshold to call the wills into question.

The court ordered broad documentary discovery and the examination of the drafting lawyer, and appointed an independent estate trustee during litigation on an interim basis to ensure fairness and preserve estate assets.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction lien action.

The defendant first sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court granted leave, finding it necessary to achieve procedural fairness as the defendant had posted security to vacate the lien.

The court found good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario based on admissions that it was no longer performing mechanical work.

The plaintiff failed to prove sufficient assets or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $50,000 in security for costs in installments.

Following the dismissal of two identical actions via summary judgment, the court determined the scale and quantum of costs.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate, balancing the principle of indemnity with reasonableness and proportionality.

The plaintiff, along with an individual personally liable pursuant to a prior consent order, was ordered to pay $25,000 in costs to each defendant.

The defendant was entirely successful on a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim of theft.

The principal of the corporate plaintiff had previously been convicted of extortion and harassment against the defendant but persisted in the civil claim.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a full indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, fixing the total costs at $57,748.20, payable jointly and severally by the corporate plaintiff and its principal.

The defendant employee brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff employer's action for alleged theft.

The employer's principal had previously been convicted of attempting to extort the employee based on these same theft allegations.

The court found there was no admissible evidence of any theft occurring at the plaintiff's premises, let alone by the defendant.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim against the defendant.

The defendants brought an unopposed motion seeking several forms of relief in a construction lien action, including vacating a claim for lien and certificate of action, ordering security for costs, and compelling production of financial records and responses to undertakings.

The court considered s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act and determined that, based on the defendants’ evidence and the absence of any responding materials from the plaintiff, there was no genuine issue requiring trial in relation to the lien claim.

The lien and certificate of action were therefore vacated without requiring any payment into court.

The court also applied Rule 56.01(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that security for costs was appropriate because the plaintiff corporation appeared to lack sufficient assets in Ontario.

Security for costs was ordered in the amount of $17,500 along with production obligations and costs of the motion.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, an American corporation with no assets in Ontario.

The parties were involved in a contractual dispute over a plant relocation contract.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that it had sufficient assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction or that it was impecunious.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $5,000 into court as a partial payment of security for costs, with the issue of any additional amount to be decided by the referee.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of tender claim.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, was an ineligible bidder under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act because the effective bidder was its related Quebec corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had effectively relocated to Ontario by establishing a corporate office and expanding its operations in the province, thereby exempting it from the restrictions of the Act.