John Campbell

This endorsement arises from a case conference concerning two wrongful dismissal claims.

The plaintiff, Sonya Sekulic, sought to compel the defendant, Sunwing Airlines, to comply with an outstanding undertaking from an examination for discovery, specifically to provide contact information for two former employees (Patrick Heinke and Gordon Kenny) who were directly involved in the dismissal events.

The defendant resisted, citing professional conduct rules and the individuals' desire for privacy.

The court ruled that the unqualified undertaking must be complied with, as the individuals possessed relevant information and might be called as witnesses.

The court dismissed the defendant's arguments regarding professional conduct rules.

The defendant was ordered to provide the contact information, provide translations of documents, and pay the plaintiff costs for the undertakings motion.

The plaintiff sued a real estate brokerage, its realtors, and its franchisor (RE/MAX Ontario) along with the franchisor's officers, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence related to the sale of his properties.

The franchisor and its officers brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them, which were based solely on vicarious liability and piercing the corporate veil.

The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of an employer/employee or principal/agent relationship between the franchisor and franchisee, nor any policy reasons to impose vicarious liability based on control.

The court also found no evidence to support piercing the corporate veil or holding the corporate officers personally liable.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from their representation in an underlying employment and corporate dispute.

The defendant lawyers brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted the motions, finding no genuine issue for trial because the plaintiffs failed to adduce expert evidence on the standard of care, the evidence showed the plaintiffs were advised of the litigation risks, and there was no evidence that the lawyers' conduct caused the plaintiffs' alleged damages.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from two summary judgment motions.

The Plaintiff successfully defended Halton's motion to dismiss claims against it, and also successfully defended against Mervyn White and Carters PC's motion to dismiss claims against them, though White and Carters PC obtained a declaration regarding the limitation period.

The court found the Plaintiff entirely successful in defending both motions and entitled to costs.

It also found it reasonable to join the defendants and applied the Moore v. Wienecke framework for a Bullock order, requiring Halton to pay a majority of White and Carters PC's costs due to Halton's motion effectively shifting responsibility and prompting White and Carters PC's companion motion.

The defendants, The Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Halton and the plaintiff's former lawyers (Mervyn F. White and Carters Professional Corporation), brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Halton argued the LTD application was late, the plaintiff's employment was terminated, and the claim was statute-barred.

The former lawyers sought dismissal if the claims against Halton were time-barred.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture for the late LTD application, finding Halton's misleading information and failure to assist contributed to the delay.

It also determined that the termination of employment did not preclude the claim and that the two-year statutory limitation period applied, which had not expired.

Both defendants' motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Andrzej Janik, sued two lawyers, Paul Stillman and Anthony Olszowy (represented by his estate), for breach of contract and negligence related to a construction lien action.

Stillman was the litigation lawyer, and Olszowy provided general business advice.

Motions for summary judgment were brought by Olszowy to dismiss the action against his estate, and by Janik against both lawyers.

The court found that Stillman, as the solicitor of record, failed to act with reasonable competence and diligence by not properly diarizing the lien expiry, not advising Janik of the lien's expiration or its questionable validity, and consenting to its removal without client instructions or offering alternative protective measures.

The court dismissed the action against Olszowy, finding he was not responsible for Janik's losses given his limited role and Stillman's primary duty.

Judgment was granted in favour of Janik against Stillman for the uncollected portion of a previous judgment against a third party, representing the loss of security in the property due to Stillman's negligence.

The former solicitor for the defendants brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in the plaintiff's default proceedings for the assessment of damages.

The solicitor argued he had an interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by the judgment, as the defendants had commenced a separate action against him for professional negligence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the solicitor had no interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and failed to show he would be adversely affected.

The court also held that allowing the intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the plaintiff's rights.