John P. Koch

The defendants sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their summary judgment motion.

The underlying action involved a claim for $1.4 million for breach of a television series production and distribution agreement.

The summary judgment motion had been dismissed because the motions judge found that the discoverability of the claim required multiple findings of fact on conflicting evidence, which could only be achieved at trial.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the full appreciation test and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with its operation of a go-kart business pending trial.

The parties had entered into a Management Agreement, which the defendants purported to terminate by changing the locks, alleging breaches by the plaintiff.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the termination, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if put out of business, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted subject to several conditions, including the timely payment of amounts due under the agreement.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to dismiss or stay the respondents' action for breach of contract and misuse of confidential information.

The appellants argued the action was barred by issue estoppel due to a Pennsylvania court order, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Pennsylvania court did not decide the choice of law issue, the appellants had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction, the real and substantial connection test was met, and Ontario was the convenient forum.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs.

The Court of Appeal fixed the appellants' costs at $10,000, inclusive of the costs of the stay motion, disbursements, and GST.

The appellants appealed a judgment giving effect to a Letter of Request issued by a United States District Court.

The Letter of Request sought documentary production and oral discovery from the appellants, who were non-parties to the US litigation involving alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by a former employee.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the scope of the requested discovery overly broad and unduly burdensome, as it risked exposing the non-party's own trade secrets without a mechanism to ensure relevance.

The court limited the scope of discovery to unobjected categories until the respondent disclosed particulars of the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets.

Appeal and cross-appeal in a solicitor's negligence action arising from corporate and estate transactions involving an executor who became president and shareholder of a corporation in which the estate held shares.

The court held that the law firm's retainer in relation to the initial transaction was limited and did not impose a duty to warn of the risk of beneficiary claims, particularly given the sophistication and role of the client.

However, the firm did owe a duty to warn in relation to a later acquisition transaction in which it was involved in all aspects and knew the estate was excluded.

The court upheld the trial judge's lost chance analysis, apportionment of fault, and nominal damages award.

The defendants in a libel action appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to compel production of documents and examination for discovery of a non-party investigator.

The investigator had been hired by the plaintiff employer to interview employees regarding the same allegations that formed the basis of the libel action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the interview notes were relevant to the defendants' plea of justification and were not protected by privilege under the Wigmore criteria.

The court concluded it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without discovery of the non-party.