Katherine Chau

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action brought a motion to compel production of documents and answers to questions refused during discovery, arguing the defendant waived solicitor-client privilege.

The alleged waiver occurred when a board member disclosed the 'bottom line' of legal advice to a workplace investigator, whose report was subsequently produced in the litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the board member lacked authority to waive privilege, the disclosure was merely an offhand comment revealing the bottom line of the advice, and the defendant did not rely on the advice to justify its termination of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Newton Crypto Ltd., brought a motion to strike the statements of defence of several defendants for failing to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding particularized allegations of fraud.

The court found the defences deficient, consisting of non-specific and blanket denials without providing the defendants' own version of facts.

The court rejected the defendants' argument regarding self-incrimination.

The statements of defence were struck, but with leave to amend within 20 days, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Alfredo Paladino, a defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, brought a motion seeking leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, a stay of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) application, and an order preventing Charles Paladino from interfering with his use of the property.

The court granted leave for the CPL, finding a triable issue regarding Alfredo's interest in the land and that the property was unique.

The court dismissed the request to stay the LTB application, deferring to the LTB's jurisdiction.

The court granted the injunction preventing Charles Paladino from interfering with Alfredo's use of the property, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the injunction.

Costs were fixed at $48,000 in favour of Alfredo Paladino due to substantial success.

This appeal arose from a family dispute where the appellant, Kakouli Poka, sought to overturn a trial judgment that rejected her counterclaim for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture and granted the respondents (Tsitsos family) a monetary remedy and accounting of property.

The appellant claimed a one-third partnership in a family pizza business and contributions of $150,000, as well as significant care for the respondents' son.

The trial judge found no joint family venture, disbelieved the appellant's financial contribution and work claims, and found the care for the son insufficient to establish a venture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's evidentiary rulings regarding a struck affidavit and admitted bank statements, and her application of the law of ouster and occupation rent.

A motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal was also denied, as it failed to meet the criteria for admission.

The defendant brought a motion to extend trial procedures, withdraw deemed admissions, and seek further documentary production on the eve of a twice-adjourned trial.

The court granted the defendant leave to file new trial affidavits, deliver late notices of objection, and withdraw deemed admissions, finding that the lapses were inadvertent and the preference is to decide matters on their merits.

However, the court ordered the defendant to pay $50,000 in costs thrown away and $20,000 in motion costs to the plaintiffs as a condition of the relief.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The action involved a claim for repayment of a $161,000 loan allegedly made to the defendants for a property purchase.

The court applied the Reid test and found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, the deadline was missed through the inadvertence of his former counsel, the motion was brought promptly once the dismissal was discovered, and the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The plaintiff was employed by the corporate defendant and was in a common-law relationship with its sole director.

Following their separation, the director terminated the plaintiff's employment, withheld her wages, and transferred the corporation's assets to a related company to render it judgment-proof.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment.

The court pierced the corporate veil under the Business Corporations Act, holding the director personally liable for the oppressive conduct.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for unpaid wages, 12 months' pay in lieu of notice, and aggravated damages for the bad faith manner of dismissal.

The plaintiffs, Mi5 Print & Digital Communications Inc. and 2214264 Ontario Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction against their former key employee, Craig Larmer, and other defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, misappropriation of confidential information, and solicitation of clients.

Larmer, a Vice-President, abruptly resigned and diverted Mi5's clients to his wife's reactivated business, LCS Imaging, and other defendants (Pyxalis Inc., Ronald Morgan, Barrie Williams, and Marvin Foy Marketing Incorporated).

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions, finding a strong prima facie case against Larmer due to his fiduciary role and clandestine pre-resignation activities.

The Pyxalis defendants were found to have knowingly assisted Larmer.

The court also found irreparable harm due to the difficulty in quantifying loss of goodwill and damaged client relationships, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction to restore fairness.

An interim interlocutory injunction was granted for one year, restraining the defendants from engaging in new activities with the specified clients, subject to existing contracts, and requiring strict accounting.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the plaintiff's uncooperative and offensive conduct, and in the case of one defendant, malicious and unsubstantiated allegations.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples and associated individual defendants, reducing the quantum due to excessive claims and the nature of a pleadings motion.

Legal Aid Ontario received its claimed modest costs.

Carita Wong was awarded substantial indemnity costs, fixed at a reduced amount, due to the plaintiff's outrageous, unjustified, and malicious allegations against her as a professional, serving as a deterrent.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay all awarded costs within 30 days.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's 80-page statement of claim, which alleged wrongful dismissal and various torts against his former employer, a legal aid clinic, its funder, and various individuals.

The court struck the claims against the employer's outside counsel, the funding agency, and two individual employees without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action was disclosed.

The remainder of the statement of claim against the employer and other individuals was struck for failing to comply with the rules of pleading, with leave granted to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim.