Jonathan Sydor

The respondent Crown brought a motion to quash an appeal from a Superior Court order requiring the appellant to produce Youth Records under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The motion judge had ordered the appellant to produce specified Youth Records or face a stay of his proposed class action proceeding.

The appellant challenged the order as final rather than interlocutory, arguing the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory in nature—a production order with a sanction for non-compliance—and therefore any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the Crown.

Following a successful motion by the third party NGOs to strike the Crown's third party claims in a proposed class action regarding youth detention centres, the NGOs sought costs of $47,695.45 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Crown argued the amount was excessive and suggested $16,500, contending that the NGOs were only successful due to late amendments to the plaintiff's pleadings.

The court rejected the Crown's argument, finding the NGOs were entitled to costs for work both before and after the amendments, but reduced the claimed amount to $35,000 all inclusive as being within the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

An appeal concerning the disqualification of counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from a lawyer's transfer between law firms.

The lawyer, who had worked extensively on an insurance coverage dispute for the plaintiff, transferred to the defendant's law firm where he would work closely with opposing counsel.

The court addressed whether an ethical screen could adequately protect the former client's confidential information given the intense working relationship between the two lawyers.

The appeal court upheld the disqualification, finding that while the firm had achieved technical compliance with professional guidelines, the spirit of those guidelines was absent and the presumption of inadvertent disclosure could not be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

In a proposed class action regarding youth detention centres, the plaintiff sued the Crown for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations, explicitly limiting the claim to the Crown's several liability.

The Crown issued third party claims against the NGOs that operated some of the centres.

The plaintiff and the NGOs moved to strike the third party claims.

The court granted the motions, applying the principle that where a plaintiff limits their claim to the defendant's proportionate degree of fault, a third party claim for contribution and indemnity is legally untenable.

In a proposed class action regarding the use of secure isolation in youth detention centres, the Crown brought a motion seeking production of the representative plaintiff's Youth Records.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to order production under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court held that while it could not directly order production of the records, it had jurisdiction under the Class Proceedings Act to order the plaintiff to apply to the Youth Justice Court for access to the records.

The court ordered the plaintiff to make the application, failing which the proposed class action would be stayed.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to remove counsel for the defendants due to an alleged conflict of interest.

A lawyer who had worked extensively on the plaintiff's file moved to the law firm representing the defendants.

The defendants' firm implemented an ethical screen.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred by focusing on whether the firm had done everything possible to avoid disclosure, rather than whether a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur.

Given the close working relationship between the migrating lawyer and the defendants' counsel, the court concluded the ethical screen was insufficient to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.

The appeal was granted and the defendants' counsel was removed.

The plaintiff brought a partial summary judgment motion seeking declarations regarding the construction of a floating dock and boathouse by his neighbors on a lake.

The neighbors had built the structure without municipal building permits or provincial work/occupancy permits, relying on the municipality's position that it lacked jurisdiction over Crown lands and the province's position that floating structures were exempt.

The court held that the municipality's zoning by-laws and the Building Code Act apply to private individuals constructing on Crown lands covered by water.

Furthermore, the court found that the provincial regulations under the Public Lands Act require work and occupancy permits for such structures, rejecting the government's interpretation as absurd.

Following a successful motion by certain defendant insurers seeking a declaration that their law firm could continue acting despite the arrival of a lawyer who had previously acted for the opposing party, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful party argued that the motion arose from circumstances created by the law firm’s hiring decision and that each party should bear its own costs, or alternatively that the amount sought was excessive.

The court applied the principles governing costs under s.131.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness rather than strict indemnification.

Although the successful defendants claimed approximately $59,800, the court found that amount excessive for a half‑day motion.

Costs were fixed at $42,000 payable within 30 days.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that an ethical screen implemented by their counsel of record was sufficient to prevent the disclosure of the plaintiff's confidential information after a lawyer who previously represented the plaintiff joined the firm.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to disqualify the firm due to a conflict of interest.

The court applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin and considered the Law Society's guidelines for ethical screens.

Finding that the firm had implemented timely and comprehensive institutional measures, the court concluded that a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no use of confidential information would occur.

The defendants' motion was granted and the plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed.

In a motion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, class counsel sought court approval of legal fees following settlement of three related institutional abuse class actions involving provincially operated facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities.

The settlements created a total fund of $67.7 million, with additional administration and notice costs bringing the total cash value to approximately $70.7 million.

Class counsel requested $14 million in fees, representing approximately 20.68% of the settlement fund, plus disbursements and taxes.

The court applied the established factors for approving class counsel fees, including litigation risk, complexity, time invested, results achieved, and expectations of the class.

Finding the requested contingency fee within the common range for class actions and reasonable given the risks and work performed, the court approved the fees, disbursements, taxes, and the allocation of fees among the three actions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of settlements in two class actions against the Crown regarding the operation of the Rideau Regional Centre and the Southwestern Regional Centre, residential facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duties resulting in harm and abuse.

The court approved the settlements, which included a $32.7 million settlement fund, a claims-based compensation scheme, an apology from the Premier, and other non-monetary benefits, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members.