J.T. Akbarali

Following the dismissal of a proposed intervener's motion to intervene, the successful party and another intervener sought costs.

The court awarded the successful party elevated costs fixed at $460,000, apportioning liability among the proposed intervener (65%) and the two defendants (17.5% each) due to the defendants' delayed positions which complicated the motion.

The second intervener was awarded $12,500 in costs against the proposed intervener, limited to costs incurred after it first requested them in its factum.

The plaintiff, Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, brought a motion to amend its statement of claim in a long-standing action concerning the Haldimand Tract.

The defendants did not oppose the amendments but sought extensive time to deliver responding expert reports.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the claim that pleaded breaches of duty 'by example'.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that pleading by example was appropriate given the plaintiff's claim for a complete accounting.

The court granted the motion to amend and set a timeline for the defendants to deliver responding expert evidence, rejecting the defendants' request for a multi-year extension based on their internal retention processes.

Costs of $90,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicants brought a motion for various relief including reconstituting the board of directors of AMPERe and piercing the corporate veil.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for injunctive relief and damages.

The court adjourned the motion due to procedural deficiencies, including poorly organized materials, lack of notice to affected non-parties, and insufficient time scheduled for the hearing.

The court ordered an urgent case conference and granted interim interim relief restraining all parties from dealing with the company's property without consent.

A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.

The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) sought a confidentiality order to prevent the disclosure of certain commercial information in an upcoming summary trial regarding a terminated commercial lease.

The moving party relied on a confidentiality provision in the lease agreement.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test and interpreted the lease's confidentiality clause, finding that the clause explicitly exempted litigation between the parties.

Without an applicable confidentiality clause, the moving party failed to establish an important commercial interest that outweighed the public interest in open courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitral award under s. 46(1)(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing the arbitrator treated them unfairly by refusing to allow an amendment to their statement of defence to plead negligent misrepresentation shortly before the peremptory hearing.

The respondent cross-applied to enforce the award.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator acted within his authority and did not treat the applicants unfairly, as the late amendment would have required further discovery and evidence.

The respondent's cross-application to enforce the award was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating psychiatrist's finding that he was incapable of consenting to a Community Treatment Plan and long-acting antipsychotic medication.

The Board also confirmed that the Community Treatment Order met the statutory criteria under the Mental Health Act.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Board's capacity analysis or its assessment of the statutory criteria.

The appeal was dismissed.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues arising from a prior endorsement in an Indigenous land claim action.

The court determined the content and scope of a notice to be delivered to Haudenosaunee communities, ruling that the defendants could state their position in the notice and that delivery would not be expanded to Treaty 18 and 19 beneficiaries to avoid undue complexity.

The court also held that no special communications protocol was necessary and declined to order the proposed intervener, Men's Fire, to deliver a pleading.

A case management conference was held in an Aboriginal land claim action to address procedural issues.

The defendants sought clarification of the plaintiff's claims following the delivery of the plaintiff's expert reports.

The court directed the defendants to deliver demands for particulars and written interrogatories, and the plaintiff to respond or amend its statement of claim.

The court also amended the timetable for the delivery of expert reports due to delays.

Finally, the court ordered that parties must not disclose unfiled expert reports to non-parties, other than retained or potential experts, without first raising the issue in case management.

Following a successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim as an abuse of process, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court noted the defendant's initial failure to file a costs outline but accepted the late submission under Rule 57.01(5).

Given the finding of abuse of process and the plaintiff's failure to heed prior judicial warnings about the claim being a collateral attack on a criminal conviction, the court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $12,000.

The plaintiff and the defendant Tofield Pizza Hut consented to a motion to remove Tofield Pizza Hut from a proposed employment misclassification class action.

The plaintiff accepted that Tofield Pizza Hut did not misclassify its delivery drivers as independent contractors.

The court granted the motion, finding that the dismissal would not prejudice the prospective class as no putative class member had a viable claim against this specific defendant.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action alleging wrongful collection of personal information through the Tim Hortons and Burger King mobile applications.

Following a national settlement agreement approved by the Superior Court of Quebec, the parties consented to the dismissal of this Ontario action.

The court dismissed the proposed class action without costs.

The applicants sought to set aside a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitral tribunal's damages award, arguing the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness, and rendered an award contrary to Canadian public policy.

The tribunal had previously found Canada breached its NAFTA obligations regarding an environmental assessment for a proposed quarry, but in the damages phase, awarded only $7 million USD for the lost opportunity of a fair assessment rather than the $440 million claimed for lost profits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the tribunal correctly applied the international law standard of proof, did not breach natural justice in its procedural rulings regarding expert reports, and rendered a decision that was not contrary to public policy.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

The defendants had convinced the unsophisticated plaintiffs to withdraw $350,000 from their RRSPs for a fictitious start-up investment, but instead misappropriated the funds for their own benefit, including purchasing a heavily leveraged property.

The court granted default judgment, awarding compensatory damages that accounted for the lost funds and tax consequences, $75,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' highly reprehensible conduct, and $92,000 in full indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious abuse of the litigation process.

The third party, Onward, moved to permanently stay the main action based on a release containing a no-claims-over clause that the plaintiff had signed in its favour.

The defendant, Enercare, had commenced a third-party claim against Onward for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had expressly waived its right to recover any damages attributable to Onward's fault in its amended statement of claim.

Applying the principle from Taylor v. Canada, the court held that this waiver eliminated any viable claim-over by Enercare against Onward, meaning the main action was not a prohibited proceeding under the release.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to the defendants' failure to pay outstanding costs orders totaling $52,500.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which was denied as they failed to provide evidence or a reasonable explanation for their delay.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in a pattern of behaviour designed to abuse the court's process, delay the proceedings, and cause the plaintiffs to incur wasted costs.

Applying the principles from Atlas Copco, the court struck the statement of defence and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $18,500.

The applicant sought a declaration that two contingency fee retainer agreements signed with the respondent law firm were non-compliant with the Solicitors Act and Regulation 195/04.

The court found numerous significant deficiencies in the retainers, including the failure to state that the client retains the right to make critical decisions and the failure to provide an example of how the fee is calculated.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court declared the retainer agreements void and directed an assessment of the respondent's account.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding sought approval of the long-form and short-form notices to be distributed to affected class members following a previously approved settlement.

The court approved the notices, finding them to be in plain language and clear regarding participation and opt-out procedures.

The court also permitted the notices to be distributed in English only, as the defendant only provided services in English.

Following the dismissal of their motion for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and for class certification, the plaintiffs brought a consent motion to discontinue the action without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that discontinuance was appropriate and would not prejudice putative class members, as notice of the class proceeding had never been circulated.

The court also approved the proposed Notice of Discontinuance and Notice Plan.