Jenna Rumeo

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.

The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.

The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.

The appellant, Gaurav Tewari, appealed the decision of the motion judge who permanently stayed his action as a duplicative pleading and an abuse of process.

The motion judge also struck the claim under rules 21.01(3)(c), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it contained no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Leave to amend was refused.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

Following an injunction motion where the defendants were largely successful, the defendants sought elevated costs based on the plaintiffs' post-motion conduct.

The defendants alleged the plaintiffs sent misleading correspondence to clients and lawyers claiming they had won the injunction.

The court held that post-motion conduct outside the litigation process is not a valid basis for elevated costs under Rule 57.01.

The court awarded the defendants $25,700, representing one-half of their partial indemnity costs, reflecting their divided success and the late timing of their settlement offer.

The plaintiffs in a class action regarding a charitable donation tax shelter brought a motion to compel the defendants' former legal counsel to produce their client files and answer questions refused during discovery.

The plaintiffs argued that solicitor-client privilege was vitiated by the fraud exception, or alternatively, waived through disclosure of a tax opinion and sharing of information with third-party consultants.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the fraud exception applies only to criminal conduct, not civil fraud.

The court further held that disclosure of the stand-alone tax opinion did not waive privilege over the entire file, and that communications shared with third-party consultants were protected by common interest privilege and the functional extension of solicitor-client privilege.