Jonah Solomon Waxman

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for repayment of alleged loans and instead awarded the respondents unpaid wages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The trial judge found that the appellants had 'banked' the respondents' earnings and that the individual appellant acted as a common employer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the banked wages or the common employer doctrine.

The Court also upheld the punitive damages and costs awards, noting the appellant's harsh, offensive, and reprehensible conduct.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant, Linda Palichuk, was entirely unsuccessful on all issues, including an application for leave to appeal a Superior Court costs order.

The appellant had persisted in seeking a guardianship order for Nina Palichuk despite an expert report confirming Nina's capacity.

The respondents were entirely successful.

The court, considering Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered costs payable to each respondent.

Linda Palichuk appealed a Superior Court decision that found her mother, Nina, capable of managing her affairs and executing various instruments (will, powers of attorney, property transfer), refused a guardianship order, and dismissed Linda's undue influence claim as hypothetical.

The appeal also challenged an order removing Linda from Nina's bank account and a costs award against Linda.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of capacity, affirming that undue influence claims regarding a living, capable person's executory instruments are premature and hypothetical, and upholding the costs award.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his eight complaints of discrimination and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The complaints primarily alleged discrimination based on ancestry and place of origin due to poor customer service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's dismissal of the complaints was reasonable as they were frivolous on their face.

The court also held that the Tribunal's process was procedurally fair and its declaration of the applicant as a vexatious litigant was justified given his history of bringing multiple meritless proceedings.

In a long-running dispute over the ownership and management of medical schools, the respondents sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion to set aside or vary a prior court order under Rule 59.06(2).

The respondents relied on a foreign court order as fresh evidence.

The court denied leave, finding that the foreign order did not constitute fresh evidence that would have changed the result, the respondents had delayed significantly in raising it, and the proposed motion was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate fully adjudicated issues.

The applicant sought to be reinstated as a member and director of a not-for-profit religious corporation after being removed for allegedly misappropriating donation funds.

The respondents terminated his membership following an investigation and video surveillance.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondents had the authority to terminate the membership under the corporate by-laws and acted with procedural fairness.

Furthermore, relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the membership decisions of a religious organization absent an underlying legal right.

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) sought an adjournment of his own motion because the counsel working on the file had left the firm and new counsel was not ready.

The court granted the adjournment on terms, setting a peremptory return date and prohibiting the filing of further materials other than authorities.

The court awarded the responding party $4,500 in costs thrown away, payable within 30 days, failing which the responding party could move to dismiss the motion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their property claim, spousal support action, and claim for return of a bracelet, with their primary concern being the costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the statement of claim, finding it an inappropriate method for the claims.

However, the court viewed the appellant's actions as a product of confusion by a self-represented litigant rather than abuse of process.

Consequently, the court reduced the costs award from $7,500 to $2,500 but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The client, Hui Yu, brought a motion seeking the production of his entire file and his daughter's entire file from his former lawyers, Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers P.C. The motion was brought in the context of an upcoming motion regarding the sufficiency of the lawyers' retainer and appropriate fees.

The client argued he needed the files to assess potential double billing and an extra fee charged on his daughter's file.

The lawyers opposed the request, arguing it was disproportionate, irrelevant, and an abuse of process.

The court granted the motion, finding that the files belonged to the client and that he was entitled to review them to determine relevancy and assess the fees charged.

The respondent client sought an order declaring that her contingency fee agreement with the applicant law firm was improperly terminated and that she was not liable for fees or disbursements.

The court found that the law firm had good cause to terminate the retainer due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Interpreting the Solicitors Act and its regulations, the court held that the law firm could proceed with the assessment of its disbursements immediately.

However, the assessment of legal fees was stayed as premature, because under the regulations, a solicitor cannot recover more in fees than the client recovers in damages, and the underlying tort action had not yet been resolved.

The plaintiff, Deborah Tilli, brought an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in a physical altercation with another student, Erica DiTomaso, at school.

The action also alleged negligent supervision against the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board and its teachers.

The court found no liability on the part of the school board, determining that its supervision policy met the standard of a careful and prudent parent for 15-year-old students.

However, the court found Erica DiTomaso liable for battery, concluding that while the initial altercation was a "consent fight" DiTomaso used excessive and unreasonable force by banging the plaintiff's head on the floor.

Damages were mitigated by the plaintiff's provocation (name-calling), resulting in DiTomaso being 60% responsible and the plaintiff 40% responsible for her injuries.