Jordan Bryan Goldblatt

Cricket Canada applied under the Arbitration Act, 1991, to set aside severable parts of an arbitration award issued by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC).

The arbitration stemmed from allegations by Bilal Syed, an unsuccessful election candidate, concerning fraud, discrimination, bias, and by-law non-compliance in Cricket Canada's internal election process.

While the arbitrator ordered a new election, he also directed Cricket Canada to amend its by-laws and implement specific internal governance measures and prospective policy changes.

The court found these latter portions of the award to be outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and ultra vires the arbitrator's mandate, applying a correctness standard of review.

Consequently, these impugned decisions were set aside, while the remainder of the award, including the order for a new election, was allowed to stand.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim to answer undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from a discovery examination.

The court applied Rules 31.06 and 29.2.03, considering relevance, scope of discovery, and proportionality.

The motion was largely dismissed, with the court ordering production only for Kersdale Investments Inc.'s financial documents and best efforts to obtain documents from a non-party for the Connaught Ave. project.

Maria Anna Koundouros brought a motion to strike the claim of her former mother-in-law, Stavroulla Koundouros, who sought repayment of $1,598,000 advanced to Maria and her son during their marriage.

Maria argued that a promissory note for the funds was solely between Stavroulla and her son, Nicolaos, and therefore no cause of action existed against her.

The court dismissed Maria's motion, finding that Stavroulla's claim, which included allegations of unjust enrichment and trust claims based on joint benefit and Maria's access to funds, disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court emphasized that the Family Law Rules, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, primarily govern such family disputes and that the promissory note was not dispositive at this early stage.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court after a motion judge dismissed their motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleging intentional interference with economic relations.

The action alleged that the defendants disseminated defamatory communications to customers and stakeholders and intimidated customers in an effort to disrupt business relationships.

The court considered the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing leave to appeal.

It found a conflicting decision regarding the sufficiency of pleadings and whether material facts may be supplied only after examinations for discovery.

Concluding that the issues raised a serious question about the correctness of the order and warranted appellate consideration, the court granted leave to appeal on all issues.

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging intentional interference with economic relations in a defamation action.

They argued the plaintiffs failed to plead the constituent elements of the tort, including unlawful means directed at a third party and resulting economic loss.

The court held that the pleadings, read generously and together with the particulars provided, sufficiently alleged the elements of the tort, including allegations of intimidation and pressure directed at customers.

It was not plain and obvious that the claim would fail.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to strike a negligence claim commenced by a former criminal client.

The plaintiff alleged negligent representation during his criminal trial, which resulted in convictions for mischief and forcible confinement followed by an absolute discharge.

The court held that the civil action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the criminal convictions because proving causation would require relitigating the criminal trial and determining whether the plaintiff would have been acquitted.

Applying abuse of process principles articulated in Supreme Court and appellate jurisprudence, the court found the action undermined the integrity and finality of the adjudicative process.

The claim was dismissed in its entirety and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class action alleging copyright infringement against a legal publisher that reproduced lawyers’ court documents within an electronic research database without express permission.

The defendants argued the claim conflicted with the open court principle, lacked common issues, and would be unmanageable due to questions of originality, authorship, client participation, and solicitor‑client privilege.

The court held that the certification threshold is procedural and low under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and that several systemic questions about the defendant’s conduct and defences, including fair dealing, implied consent, and public policy, were capable of common resolution.

Although issues such as authorship, ownership, and damages would require individual determinations, the court concluded these did not preclude certification.

The proposed class was narrowed to lawyers and paralegals in private practice, and the action was certified with modified common issues.