John Downing

The defendant brought a motion to impose penalties on the plaintiff for civil contempt regarding a failure to provide access to corporate records.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a declaration that he had purged his contempt.

The court found that the plaintiff had made good faith efforts to comply with the order and had purged his contempt.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 for the initial contempt and ordered that the previous contempt order be set aside upon payment of the fine.

The defendant brought a motion to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel of record for the plaintiffs, citing conflict of interest and 'lawyer as witness' concerns.

The dispute involved an internal corporate struggle over share ownership and director status in LEO Canada Inc. Siskinds LLP had acted as corporate counsel during the events giving rise to the dispute and was now acting as litigation counsel for both the corporation and one of the disputing shareholders.

The court found significant conflict of interest concerns, noting that lawyers from the firm were likely to be necessary witnesses regarding the preparation and execution of contested corporate documents.

The court ordered the removal of Siskinds LLP, directed that the corporation and the individual plaintiff obtain separate representation, and established a procedure for documentary disclosure.

The defendant brought a motion to find the plaintiffs in civil contempt for allegedly breaching an interim order that mandated joint operation of a corporation, restricted disclosure of litigation details, and required the sharing of corporate information and financial reports.

The court found that the plaintiffs intentionally breached the order by failing to provide access to corporate records and failing to deliver monthly financial reports, resulting in formal findings of contempt.

The court also found the plaintiff breached the disclosure restrictions but exercised its discretion not to make a formal contempt finding on that ground.

The allegations of failing to jointly operate the corporation were dismissed.

A commercial landlord brought an application seeking interpretation of a lease and additional rent for a basement area occupied by the tenant’s assignee following insolvency proceedings.

The court examined the lease language, surrounding negotiations, and principles of contractual interpretation under Sattva.

It held that the basement was not part of the leased premises, but the lease rent was calculated on a per‑square‑foot basis.

The tenant’s assignee was therefore liable to pay rent for the basement based on the lease rate for its square footage from the date of assignment.

The landlord’s separate claim for rectification of the lease to reflect greater square footage of the upper floors was dismissed because the landlord had expressly waived the contractual right to remeasure the premises.

The plaintiffs brought a motion compelling production of certain investigative documents, including an internal “Incident Bulletin” and employee witness statements, arising from a petrochemical facility shutdown allegedly caused by repair work performed by the defendants.

The defendants asserted solicitor‑client and litigation privilege and sought orders requiring the plaintiffs to destroy copies of the documents already in their possession.

The court held the defendants failed to establish that the documents were created for the dominant purpose of litigation or for obtaining legal advice, finding instead that they were generated primarily for operational investigation and business relationship management.

In any event, the court found that the defendants voluntarily disclosed the documents to the plaintiffs through a senior manager with ostensible authority, constituting waiver of any privilege.

The plaintiffs’ motion for production of the documents was granted and the defendants’ motion asserting privilege was dismissed.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing third party claims and cross‑claims arising from flood damage in a Toronto office tower allegedly caused by a plumbing failure and monitoring issues with a building automation system.

The responding parties alleged that the moving parties, as building owner or property manager, were liable in contribution and indemnity or owed independent duties in tort.

The court found the claims were premised on factual errors regarding corporate roles and ownership, and that the property manager was protected by a limitation of liability clause in the tenants’ leases that barred claims for contribution or indemnity.

The responding parties produced no evidence establishing a genuine issue for trial, and a proposed amendment to plead an independent tort was unsupported and limitation‑barred.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the claims against the moving parties and the motion to amend was refused.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and sought approval of a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees.

The claim arose from participation in a university-affiliated forgivable loan program that generated charitable donation tax receipts which were later disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency, resulting in reassessments and interest liabilities for participants.

Approximately 200 individuals were proposed as class members.

The settlement provided refunds equal to 10% of amounts donated under the program and permitted class members to elect payment or donate the amount to the university.

The court found that the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Act were met and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved class counsel fees.