Jonathan C. Lisus

The respondent, Eli Dadouch, brought a motion seeking the return and destruction of solicitor-client privileged notes surreptitiously photographed by the applicant, Anita Bielak, and for orders sealing the court file and restraining the applicant from discussing the litigation with their adult children.

The court found the notes to be privileged and ordered their return and destruction.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a sealing order and a gag order, emphasizing the principle of open courts and the impracticality of such an order given the adult children's awareness and the need for therapeutic, not legal, intervention for their distress.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) sought an order to enforce an agreement between counsel to delay examinations under Rule 39.03 pending a motion to quash summonses, or alternatively, to stay the summonses.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the quashing of summonses and the standing of HMQ/OLG to quash summonses for unrepresented witnesses.

The court determined that proceeding with examinations would cause irreparable harm to HMQ's legal interests by rendering the motion to quash moot.

The balance of convenience favoured HMQ, and the motion to stay the summonses was granted.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing her motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel and granting a cross-motion to strike certain material from her motion record based on settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct tests for disqualification and settlement privilege, and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance extending beyond the interests of the parties.

The appellants appealed an arbitration decision that dismissed their claim for rectification of a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The appellants argued that the right of first offer clause contained a mutual mistake by allowing a partial take-up of shares, and sought to rectify it to require an all-or-nothing purchase.

The arbitrator found no prior common intention to support rectification.

On appeal, the court held that the issues raised by the appellants were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, an Indigenous person, sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcast and display of the Cleveland Indians' team name and 'Chief Wahoo' logo during the American League Championship Series in Toronto, pending human rights complaints.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the name and logo constituted discrimination in the provision of a service.

However, the court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the delay in bringing the application, and found the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the material prejudice of last-minute broadcast and uniform changes.

The Applicant sought to disqualify the Respondent's counsel, Harold Niman and Niman Gelgoot & Associates, citing a conflict of interest due to Niman's prior representation against the Applicant and her family in other family law disputes, and alleging Niman possessed confidential information.

The Applicant also argued the Respondent's retention of Niman was tactical and intended to intimidate her.

Niman brought a cross-motion to strike certain evidence from the Applicant's affidavits, including settlement-privileged communications and documents related to a complaint against Dr. Douglas Weir to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion to disqualify, finding no "sufficient relationship" between the prior retainers and the current proceeding, and no evidence that Niman actually possessed relevant confidential information.

The court granted Niman's motion to strike, upholding settlement privilege and the statutory prohibition against admitting professional regulatory proceedings in civil matters.

Following the dismissal of a motion to remove the respondent's counsel in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $88,729.26 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued the quantum was unreasonable and sought to have costs fixed at $30,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's counsel's hours and rates to be somewhat excessive compared to the moving parties' counsel, but acknowledged the importance of the motion.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable forthwith, rejecting the moving parties' argument that payment should be deferred until the equalization payment was determined.

The wife and her boyfriend brought a motion to remove the husband's lawyer due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The boyfriend had a brief consultation with the lawyer for his own matrimonial matter, and the husband's answer in the current litigation alleged an affair between the wife and boyfriend and extravagant spending.

The moving parties claimed the lawyer breached duties of confidence, loyalty, and candour, and faced a potential conflict in cross-examining the boyfriend as a witness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no confidential information was disclosed, the relationship between the wife and boyfriend was not confidential, and the two matrimonial litigations were not sufficiently related to create a presumption of conflict.

The court also found no breach of a limited duty of loyalty or candour, and no impediment to cross-examination.

The appellants were awarded costs of the motion before the Superior Court on consent.

The respondents were ordered to pay $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, in addition to the costs awarded to the appellants in the appeal.

The appellants, General Motors dealers in the Greater Toronto Area, sued GMCL and its US parent company, GM US, alleging breaches of the duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act and at common law.

The motion judge struck the claim against GM US under Rule 21, finding it was neither a party to the franchise agreement nor a franchisor's associate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the determination of whether GM US was a franchisor's associate or owed a duty of fair dealing required a full factual record and should not be dismissed at the pleadings stage.

The Ministry appealed a costs order awarding the plaintiffs $150,000 in partial indemnity costs following a motion to join the Ministry as a party and amend the statement of claim.

The Ministry argued the costs were excessive for a pleadings motion and that the judge failed to properly apply Rule 57.01.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion was treated as a 'mini-trial' by the Ministry, the issues were of significant importance, and the judge properly considered the relevant factors in exercising his discretion to fix costs.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision declaring that their consent was not required for the respondent tenants to assign and sublease commercial leases as part of a joint venture.

The tenants proposed assigning the leases to a limited partnership whose general partner was the existing tenant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that a limited partnership can only hold property through its general partner.

Since the leases were being assigned to the general partner, which was the existing tenant, the assignment fell within the leases' affiliate exception and did not require the landlords' consent.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion for the return of confidential information held by their former employee, the defendant, on her personal computer.

The defendant had been terminated and was sued for allegedly stealing over $400,000, while she counterclaimed for wrongful termination.

The parties agreed to have an independent IT expert copy and delete the confidential information, but disputed whether the expert should image the entire hard drive for preservation and whether the defendant should swear an affirmation confirming all confidential documents were produced.

The court ordered that the hard drive be imaged and preserved by an independent third party to prevent future disputes, and required the defendant to provide a sworn confirmation.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to strike or stay an amended statement of claim.

The underlying action alleged that government representations induced the plaintiffs to invest in a telecommunications company and that subsequent government conduct destroyed the value of the investment, causing significant losses.

The moving party argued the claim was derivative in nature and that several pleaded causes of action disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the stringent test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b) was not met because there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision.

Although the pleadings raised novel and important legal issues, they were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail and should proceed on a full evidentiary record.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a series of ex parte 'investigative receivership' orders, the successful appellants sought costs against both the original applicant and the court-appointed receiver.

The Court of Appeal held that both were liable for costs.

The applicant was liable on a partial indemnity scale because he initiated and supported the proceedings.

The receiver was held personally liable for costs on a substantial indemnity scale because it acted as a 'real litigator' and pursued an impermissibly overreaching roving receivership, losing its objectivity as an officer of the court.

The Court also clarified that substantial indemnity costs are calculated as 1.5 times partial indemnity costs under Rule 1.03, rather than as a percentage of full indemnity costs.

The parties separated in 1999 after a 17-year marriage.

Following the wife's death in 2011, her estate obtained a summary judgment order declaring that all property owned by either party at separation was co-owned equally and held in trust.

At trial to determine the equalization payment, the court rejected both experts' extreme interpretations of the summary judgment order.

The court found the order did not impose retroactive trust obligations that would penalize post-separation consumption or require compounding interest.

The court also determined that substantial bonuses paid to the husband by his company post-separation were remuneration for his active management services, not shareholder distributions, and thus were not subject to equal division.

After valuing the respective assets, the court ordered the husband to pay the estate an equalization payment of $7,932,647.50.

The applicants, anchor tenants in three shopping malls, sought to assign and sublease their leases to a joint venture limited partnership.

The respondent landlords refused consent.

The court held that consent was not required because the leases were being assigned to the general partner, which was an affiliate of the existing tenant, thus falling under the leases' Affiliate Exception.

Alternatively, the court found that the landlords unreasonably withheld consent for two of the leases, as the tenant would remain liable and continue operating the stores, but the landlord was entitled to arbitrarily withhold consent for the third lease based on its specific terms.

The plaintiffs and the defendant OLG brought cross-motions regarding discovery in an action for damages arising from the cancellation of the Slots at Racetrack Program.

The plaintiffs sought an order compelling OLG to produce relevant emails sent or received by current and former OLG employees on personal, non-OLG email accounts, and to produce OLG's email use and document retention policies.

OLG sought leave to conduct an advance form of discovery by written questions prior to oral examinations.

The court adjourned both motions, ordering OLG to produce its IT and document retention policies for the court's review, and granting the parties leave to file further affidavit evidence regarding OLG's request for written particulars.

On motions to strike in a franchise dispute arising from the post-bankruptcy restructuring of an automotive manufacturer, the court dismissed the entire claim against the U.S. parent entities and struck discrete allegations against the Canadian franchisor.

The court held that a franchisor’s associate is not liable under s. 3 of the Arthur Wishart Act unless it is also a party to the relevant franchise agreement, and further found the pleadings did not satisfy the statutory definition of franchisor’s associate.

The court also held that the pleadings did not justify piercing the corporate veil to impose contractual liability on the parent companies.

Allegations concerning misuse of government bailout funds and the defendants’ preference of their own interests were struck as irrelevant, scandalous, and abusive.

Leave to amend was refused.

The defendant moved under Rules 21.01(1)(a) and 51.06 for a declaration that the plaintiffs had irrevocably elected to affirm a settlement agreement and therefore could not pursue rescission in the alternative.

In a complex commercial dispute arising from the termination of margin facilities and liquidation of hedge fund assets during the 2009 financial crisis, the court held that the factual matrix, discovery record, and alleged misrepresentations were too complicated to resolve on a paper record on the eve of trial.

The court was not satisfied that the pleadings or discovery admissions established the necessary elements of election, nor that a forced election between inconsistent remedies should be imposed at that stage.

The motion was dismissed, leave to amend was granted, and costs of $100,000 inclusive were awarded to the plaintiffs.