John Kingman Phillips

In a criminal appeal involving fraud convictions, the moving party sought additional non-privileged disclosure to support proposed fresh-evidence abuse-of-process claims.

Applying prior case-management directions and existing disclosure rulings, the court found no basis for further compelled production on the issues properly before it and dismissed the motion.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter involving custody of a child.

The respondent father sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $105,350.14 for the motion to stay, motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal.

The appellant mother sought either no costs or a modest award due to her strained financial circumstances, having already been ordered to pay $200,000 in trial costs and earning approximately $40,000 annually.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father in the reduced sum of $40,000, considering the length and complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues, proportionality, and the appellant's financial circumstances.

A 14-year-old boy had been systematically alienated from his father by his mother through years of denigration, false allegations, and manipulation.

The trial judge found the mother had engaged in parental alienation and ordered a reversal of custody, placing the child with the father and suspending contact with the mother for six months to allow for reconciliation.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test, imposing an extreme remedy without expert evidence or therapeutic support, improperly delegating decision-making to therapists, and ordering therapy without the child's consent in violation of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and upholding the trial judge's discretionary decision-making in this difficult family law matter.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellants (The Attorney General of Canada and two officers) were successful on appeal and were awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal set aside the trial costs order and awarded the appellants costs at trial on a partial indemnity basis, in addition to costs of the appeal.

An appeal from a trial judgment that recognized a new common law tort of harassment and found the defendants liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The plaintiff, an RCMP constable, alleged harassment and bullying by RCMP managers from 2005 to 2012.

The trial judge awarded $100,000 in general damages, $41,000 in special damages, and $825,000 in costs.

The appellate court reversed, holding that no tort of harassment exists in Ontario and that the elements of intentional infliction of mental suffering were not established.

The court found numerous palpable and overriding factual errors in the trial judge's findings, particularly regarding the plaintiff's failure to comply with regulations requiring leave without pay before running for political nomination and the bona fides of management's concerns about conflicts of interest.

The applicants, who lost $150 million investing in Concordia International Corp., applied for a Norwich Order against the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

They sought trading data and client identities to identify short-sellers they believed conspired to illegally manipulate Concordia's share price.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the applicants had a bona fide potential claim for civil conspiracy, they failed to satisfy the other criteria for a Norwich Order.

Specifically, IIROC's role as a regulator did not constitute being 'mixed up' in the wrongdoing, the applicants already had sufficient information to pursue claims, and balancing IIROC's regulatory duties and privacy interests against the applicants' interests favoured denying the order.

The Holmes defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their fourth motion to set aside a Mareva injunction and ancillary orders.

The motion judge had dismissed the Mareva order challenge on grounds of waiver and res judicata.

The applicant argued for leave based on conflicting decisions and doubt regarding the order's correctness.

The court denied leave, finding no conflicting decision on principle and no serious debate about the order's correctness, emphasizing the unique circumstances and the history of repeated, unsuccessful motions.