Douglas F. Best

The moving party, a respondent in the underlying application, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a consent order that had approved a share purchase agreement, alleging newly discovered fraud by the responding party.

The moving party sought to have the share sale proceeds paid into court as security for claims in related actions, or alternatively, a Mareva injunction restraining the responding party from dealing with the proceeds.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 59.06(2) cannot be used to amend the terms of a contract approved by a consent order.

The court also denied the Mareva injunction, finding no evidence to support a reasonable inference of a real risk that the responding party would dissipate or remove the assets to avoid a judgment.

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.

This costs decision addresses the aftermath of a motion/application in which the applicants sought to convert an application to an action, amend parties, and obtain interim relief regarding property.

The court declined to fix costs for the entire application, limiting its award to the motion before it.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) was awarded partial indemnity costs, while no costs were awarded as between the applicants and the Quddus respondents due to mixed success.

The decision reviews the principles governing costs, including the principle of indemnity, reasonableness, and the impact of consent adjournments.

The applicants sought to convert an application to an action and amend their pleadings to include claims for misappropriation, a tracing order, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), punitive damages, and negligence against CIBC's lawyer.

The court granted the conversion to an action (by agreement) and allowed the claims for misappropriation and tracing, finding they arose from existing factual allegations.

However, the court denied adding Zinnatus Salam as a plaintiff due to duplicative proceedings, dismissed the motion for an immediate CPL (though allowed the claim to be pleaded), and rejected claims for punitive damages and negligence against CIBC's lawyer, deeming them new, statute-barred causes of action or lacking factual basis.

The defendants in a defamation action sought leave to amend their statement of defence to plead limitation defences under sections 5 and 6 of the Libel and Slander Act.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment would cause actual prejudice due to the passage of time, changes to computer systems, and the unavailability of website snapshots from the date of publication.

The court granted the motion, finding that any evidentiary difficulties would prejudice the defendants rather than the plaintiff, and that the proposed defences were tenable at law.

The amendment was granted on the condition that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for discovery of documents from the City of Greater Sudbury and interveners in advance of cross-examinations on affidavits for a pending interlocutory injunction motion.

The Plaintiffs sought documents related to the City's alleged bad faith and unfair treatment towards them, particularly in comparison to how the City dealt with their neighbours (the interveners).

The court found that allegations of bad faith or unfair treatment were not relevant to the pleaded causes of action (negligence, negligent misrepresentation, estoppel) or the criteria for injunctive relief as currently framed in the Statement of Claim.

Consequently, the request for documents pertaining to the neighbours' properties (1380 Keast Drive and 1366 Keast Drive) was dismissed.

However, the court ordered the City to produce records of communications related to the Plaintiffs' own permit applications and construction at 1377 Keast Drive, finding these relevant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction, the defendants sought costs of over $100,000 payable forthwith.

The court noted the general rule that an unsuccessful party on an injunction motion typically pays costs forthwith, but found this to be an exceptional case.

The court found the defendant accountant's evidence regarding his involvement in the allegedly fraudulent transaction to be highly questionable and contrary to normal business practices.

Consequently, the court fixed costs at $85,000 on a partial indemnity basis but ordered them to be in the cause, leaving the ultimate burden of costs to be determined at trial.

Following an appeal, the parties provided joint submissions regarding the costs of the trial.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the trial judgment be amended on consent to award the plaintiff fixed costs in the amount of $39,196.08.

The respondent was dismissed without cause from his managerial position after 13 months of service.

The trial judge awarded a base notice period of six months and added two three-month Wallace extensions for bad faith in the manner of dismissal, along with damages for mitigation expenses and loss of an Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the six-month base notice period but set aside the Wallace extensions, finding no evidence of bad faith or high-handed conduct by the employer.

The court also adjusted the damages for mitigation expenses and the stock purchase plan.

The respondent union council brought a motion to quash the applicant employers' application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had previously ruled that a 1999 settlement agreement was unenforceable against the union council, allowing a related employer application to proceed.

The employers sought judicial review to prohibit the Board from proceeding, arguing the application was an abuse of process and breached the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the threshold issue of whether the union council was bound by the settlement should be reviewed prior to the Board hearing the merits.

The court also dismissed the union council's alternative motion to strike an affidavit, admitting the evidence for the judicial review.