Lauren P.S. Epstein

The plaintiff, a former associate lawyer, brought a motion to consolidate her wrongful dismissal action against her former employer with a subsequent libel action against the employer and their legal counsel.

The libel action arose from comments made by the employer's counsel to a legal publication regarding the wrongful dismissal pleadings.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that doing so would likely force the defendants' counsel to step down due to conflicts of interest and risk breaching solicitor-client privilege.

Instead, the court ordered a stay of the libel action pending the resolution of the wrongful dismissal action.

Mid-Bowline Group Corp. applied under s. 182 of the OBCA for approval of a plan of arrangement to sell WIND Mobile to Shaw Communications for $1.6 billion.

The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. opposed the plan, asserting a constructive trust claim over shares held by West Face Capital Inc., alleging misuse of confidential information.

The court found the plan of arrangement fair and reasonable, as it allowed the sale to proceed while preserving Catalyst's right to pursue its claims against West Face for profits and tracing.

The court rejected Catalyst's demand for a full trial, citing the need for a timely resolution, and ordered an expedited four-day hearing for the constructive trust issue.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: an order dismissing a request for forensic imaging of the responding parties' servers and devices, and an order dismissing a contempt motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain its lengthy delay in pursuing the correct appeal route.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the proposed appeals lacked merit, as the motions judge correctly applied the legal tests for forensic imaging and civil contempt, and there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding for unpaid overtime on behalf of approximately 7,800 employees.

The defendants argued the certification decision conflicted with appellate authority regarding systemic practices and misclassification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the plaintiff had properly framed the case around a systemic policy rather than individual misclassification.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.

On a refusals motion arising from two related civil actions over a settlement agreement resolving a car dealership dispute, the moving parties sought production of solicitor-client communications and legal files concerning settlement negotiations.

The responding parties alleged they entered the agreement in reliance on misrepresentations and sought to set it aside, but did not plead reliance on legal advice.

The court adopted the two-part implied waiver analysis requiring that legal advice be material to the lawsuit and affirmatively put in issue by the party claiming privilege.

It held that merely placing state of mind in issue was insufficient, and that disclosure of a single email did not amount to selective disclosure waiving privilege over the broader solicitor-client communications.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order establishing a sale process for two corporations involved in an oppression remedy claim.

The motion judge ordered that the two corporations being sold could no longer be parties to the litigation to facilitate the sale.

The appellants argued this would cause tax prejudice, but the Court of Appeal found that any tax consequences could be addressed through expert calculation without flowing damages through the corporations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award requiring payment of finder’s fees arising from investments made by a third-party investor introduced through the respondent.

The applicant argued the arbitrator committed unreasonable errors of law, improperly relied on a prior agreement, misinterpreted a non‑circumvention clause, and exceeded jurisdiction by determining issues relating to securities law registration requirements.

The court held that even if reasonableness review were available, the arbitrator’s interpretation of the finder’s fee agreement was reasonable and grounded in the contractual language and factual matrix.

The court further held that securities law compliance issues were capable of arbitration and that the applicant had waived jurisdictional objections by raising the issue before the arbitrator.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed and the cross‑application to enforce the arbitration award was granted.