Kaleigh Sonshine

The individual respondents moved under Rule 59.06 to vary a previous order that enforced arbitral awards and held them jointly and severally liable for costs.

They argued the judge made a slip by holding them personally liable without piercing the corporate veil, and alternatively relied on newly discovered facts regarding an alleged promise not to enforce costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the previous order accurately reflected the arbitral tribunal's costs award against all respondents.

The court held that costs liability as an unsuccessful party does not depend on piercing the corporate veil, and found no evidence of the alleged promise.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff's defamation claim was statute barred under section 6 of the Libel and Slander Act (LSA).

The plaintiff published an article alleging the plaintiff hired a hacker to destroy a video of Mayor Rob Ford.

The plaintiff commenced the action more than three months after learning of the publication.

The defendants argued that the preconditions in sections 7 and 8 of the LSA were satisfied, making the three-month limitation period applicable.

The court found that the article was published in Ontario and that the publisher's information was substantially compliant with statutory requirements.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed as statute barred.

The applicant, Vivian Dubrofsky, sought interim injunctive relief under section 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) to restrain her mother, Maryka Weisz, from withdrawing funds from Art Tile Limited except for ordinary course expenses, pending final disposition.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the applicant met the evidentiary threshold, she failed to establish irreparable harm.

The court ordered that the Westmore Property not be encumbered and that certain trust funds remain in trust, but otherwise dismissed the requested relief.

The moving party tenant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from interfering with its use of a commercial truck yard.

The respondent had been using the property without paying rent and had locked the moving party out following a violent robbery.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the continuous interference with the tenant's property rights constituted irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property and granted the tenant exclusive possession.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a Protective Order after the plaintiff's co-founder disclosed confidential information to the plaintiff's foreign counsel in breach of the order.

The Associate Judge declined to impose the requested sanction of dismissing part of the Statement of Claim, finding insufficient prejudice and lack of nexus.

However, the Associate Judge ordered the plaintiff to take specific remedial steps to ensure its foreign counsel cease using the information, destroy or return it, and report on compliance.

Costs of $15,000 for the motion and $8,000 for an abandoned motion were awarded to the defendants.

The appellants, found in civil contempt for disobeying a court order regarding property use and trespassing, appealed their $1,000,000 fine.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for fresh evidence, finding it lacked due diligence and would not have affected the outcome.

The court upheld the sentencing judge's findings that the contempt was flagrant, protracted, deliberate, and profitable, and that the fine was fit, dismissing the appeal.

The plaintiff, Aware Ads Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Greg Walker, to prevent him from working for a competitor, despite his non-competition and non-solicitation clauses having expired.

The plaintiff alleged breach of confidence, breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case on any of its causes of action, failed to prove irreparable harm, and found the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court also ruled that a transcript and audio recording of a conversation were inadmissible due to lack of proper authentication.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The parties, two brothers who jointly own a cement delivery business through separate corporations, reached a settlement in their oppression applications involving a shotgun buy-sell agreement.

A dispute arose regarding the payment of legal fees incurred by one brother (DN) from the business's revenues, which had been the historical practice.

The other brother (GN) refused to transfer funds to pay a $364,346.96 legal invoice, arguing the fees were unreasonable and disproportionate to his own.

The court found that GN's refusal breached the status quo agreed upon in the settlement and ordered GN to transfer the funds.

The court also dismissed GN's request to refer the legal accounts for assessment, finding he lacked standing under section 9 of the Solicitors Act.

This endorsement addresses two procedural issues arising from the appellants' motion to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, specifically concerning an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The first issue involved the production of two recordings made by former counsel, which the appellants argued were inadmissible due to a breach of professional conduct rules.

The court affirmed that a breach of professional conduct rules does not automatically render evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings and ordered the production of the recordings, subject to conditions for their use.

The second issue concerned the standing of former counsel to file evidence and a factum.

The court granted former counsel limited leave to intervene as an added party, allowing them to file a responding factum on the specific issue of whether ineffective assistance of counsel is a valid ground of appeal in civil proceedings.

The appellants, previously found in contempt of an injunction and fined $1 million, brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing their appeal for delay and sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

They also sought to introduce a new ground of appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, based on a misapplication of criminal practice directions to a civil proceeding.

The court granted the motion to set aside the dismissal and extend time, but imposed strict conditions, finding the ineffective assistance of counsel argument weak in a civil context.

The applicant brought a consent motion to transfer a commercial lease application from Brampton to Toronto to be heard with a companion application.

The sole reason for the requested transfer was to secure an earlier hearing date, as the parties were dissatisfied with the dates available in Brampton.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the desire for an earlier hearing date does not justify transferring a proceeding to a jurisdiction with no connection to the matter, as doing so would inappropriately use other regions to arbitrage court schedules.

The appellants appealed an order determining the terms of a shotgun buy/sell agreement reached to settle oppression claims.

They argued the application judge erred by refusing to include a term requiring the corporation to indemnify one of the appellants for personal tax liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of such an agreement and that the proposed term was not commercially reasonable.

The plaintiff, an internet marketing company, brought an urgent motion for an interim injunction, a Mareva injunction, and a Certificate of Pending Litigation against two former employees and a related corporation.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by operating a competing business and misappropriating confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm, as the evidence connecting the defendants to the competing business was largely circumstantial and speculative.

The requests for asset-freezing relief and a Certificate of Pending Litigation were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation or illicit funding.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff misrepresented the zoning of the property and breached the agreement by refusing to grant further extensions.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the clear 'entire agreement' and 'as is' clauses in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and the defendant's own failure to properly investigate the zoning.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, finding she had reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) appealed a decision of its Discipline Panel that dismissed four allegations of professional misconduct against an engineer and his firm regarding their environmental assessment and remediation of an oil spill.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Panel committed several errors of law, including applying a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities, failing to treat practising without a Certificate of Authorization as a strict liability offence, improperly drawing an adverse inference, and applying the tort concepts of harm and causation to the regulatory definition of negligence.

The court set aside the Panel's decision and remitted the matter to be reheard by a differently constituted panel.

The appellant was jogging on an indoor track at McMaster University when struck from behind by a member of the Flying Angels Running Club, suffering a serious shoulder injury requiring surgery.

At trial, no negligence was found against McMaster University or the runner who struck the appellant.

However, the Flying Angels Running Club and its coach were found negligent.

The jury determined the appellant was 40 percent contributorily negligent for failing to move to a different lane when asked to do so.

The appellant received approximately $80,000 net in damages including prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the appellant challenged four evidentiary rulings by the trial judge: the characterization of lane one as the "default lane" in the jury charge, the exclusion of an email from a track employee, the exclusion of a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Labour, and the exclusion of insurance reimbursement charts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions.

The respondents brought motions for an order requiring the appellant to post security for costs on appeal.

The appellant was injured while running on an indoor track at McMaster University and sued for negligence and breach of statutory duty.

Following a three-week trial, the jury found the Flying Angels Running Club and George Kerr 60% liable, with the appellant 40% contributorily negligent.

The appellant was awarded damages of $101,885 but was required to pay substantial costs to the defendants.

The motions judge granted the security for costs motions, finding that although the appeal was not frivolous and vexatious, security was warranted under the applicable rules considering the appellant's non-resident status, the weak merits of the appeal, and the appellant's demonstrated financial capacity to post security.