Jonathan Frustaglio

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order requiring them to produce further and better affidavits of documents.

The defendants argued the Associate Judge erred by refusing an adjournment, making the order without sufficient evidence, and appending an overly broad list of documents to the order.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal of the adjournment, sufficient evidence to support the order, and that the order appropriately incorporated principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding parties to provide information required under section 39 of the Construction Act.

The responding parties provided the requested information after the motion was served but before the hearing.

The moving party sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the moving party, finding that the responding parties caused the unnecessary motion by failing to respond to the section 39 demand within the statutory 21-day period and making no reasonable effort to resolve the motion costs.

The plaintiffs sued two former employees for breach of employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duties of loyalty and good faith, and conversion after they left to work for a competitor.

The court found that the non-competition clauses in the employment agreements were ambiguous and overly broad, and therefore unenforceable.

The court also found that the employees were not fiduciaries.

While one employee breached his implied duty of loyalty and his obligation to safeguard confidential information by forwarding company documents to his personal email and doing work for a competitor while still employed, the plaintiffs failed to prove that these breaches caused any damages.

The action was dismissed against one employee, and the other was ordered to pay $1 in nominal damages.

The applicant, the lowest bidder on a municipal construction contract, sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to award the contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant brought the application before the Superior Court of Justice without seeking leave under section 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court declined jurisdiction, holding that applications for judicial review must be brought before the Divisional Court in accordance with the Act and the Consolidated Practice Direction.

The application was dismissed for being brought in the wrong forum.

The plaintiff in a construction dispute brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer questions refused at discovery and to produce a further and better affidavit of documents.

The core issue was whether the defendants implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege regarding advice received during the negotiation of an Amending Agreement.

The Master found no waiver regarding the negotiation of the agreement, but found an implicit waiver regarding advice on payments made after the agreement.

The Master also ordered disclosure of competing quotations but denied requests for consultant files and financial means.

The plaintiff was granted leave to complete the discovery and awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,500.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for $81,385.99 for unpaid fish deliveries against the defendants, claiming the individual defendants were personally liable as partners of an unincorporated entity.

The defendants argued the corporate entity Tridente Group Ltd. was the proper contracting party and admitted $22,095.38 was owed by that corporation.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the total amount owed and the personal liability of the individual defendants, but granted partial summary judgment for the admitted amount against Tridente Group Ltd.

The proposed defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel and his law firm from acting on a pending motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation, arguing that the counsel had sworn an affidavit and thus became a witness.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that the counsel was not a necessary witness at trial and that the firm could simply substitute an affidavit from another member of the firm.

The court emphasized proportionality and noted that removing a firm merely because a lawyer swore a procedural affidavit on a motion is unnecessary.