Joseph P. Maggisano

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related economic torts arising from the formation of Icon Plumbing and the departure of key personnel from Riva Plumbing.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants competed unlawfully, misused confidential information, or caused any compensable loss.

The counterclaim for unpaid bonuses by Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari was allowed, with damages awarded in the agreed amount plus interest.

This appeal concerned a partnership dispute among family members regarding the construction and sale of residential houses.

The appellant appealed the trial judgment which found him in breach of fiduciary duties for concealing a property sale, misrepresenting its value, and attempting to improperly discharge a mortgage.

The appeal raised issues of the respondents' alleged failure to mitigate damages, the trial judge's finding on a partnership agreement, trial fairness regarding cross-examination on a prior disciplinary conviction and the use of an outline by a self-represented litigant, and the calculation of project expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal but allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by not addressing the appellant's proven project expenses.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of three overlapping actions brought under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The actions arose from a family dispute concerning the appellant's exclusion from his grandfather's will and alleged undue influence and fraudulent conduct by family members and lawyers.

The motion judge dismissed the actions as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge failed to make explicit findings that the proceedings were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process; (2) the harassment and defamation claims were supported by the pleadings; and (3) the motion judge failed to explain why the statements of claim could not be amended.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds of appeal and upheld the dismissals.

The plaintiff, Riva Plumbing Limited, brought a motion to consolidate its action (the "Riva Action") with a wrongful dismissal action brought against it by a former employee, Aleem Aziz (the "Aziz Action").

The court applied the threshold test for consolidation under Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that while there were some common facts, there were no common questions of law or fact of sufficient importance to warrant consolidation.

The court also considered factors such as avoiding multiplicity of proceedings (Courts of Justice Act s. 138) and achieving a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination (Rule 1.04).

It concluded that consolidation would not achieve a just outcome, particularly given the Aziz Action was proceeding under Simplified Rules, which would lose its advantages if consolidated with a complex action.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The plaintiff, N.M. Davis Corporation Limited, moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant, Marshall Stuart Ross, specifically seeking a detailed Schedule B regarding the Crown disclosure brief from a related criminal matter.

The plaintiff sought this information to determine when the co-defendant, Eva Jacqueline Wower, might have anticipated Ross's conviction for murder, which is relevant to the plaintiff's claim that Ross fraudulently conveyed properties to Wower under the guise of a divorce to defeat a judgment.

The defendant Ross resisted, arguing irrelevance and disproportionality given the 13 boxes of documents.

The court, applying principles from D.P. v. Wagg and Rule 29.2, found that while the timing of disclosure was relevant, requiring a full cataloguing of the entire Crown brief was disproportionate.

The court ordered Ross to amend his affidavit to identify transmission documents (e.g., covering letters) indicating when portions of the Crown brief were received by his counsel, without requiring a full Wagg screening process for these transmission documents.

Costs were awarded in the cause.