Jerry Herszkopf

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent after finding a reasonable doubt regarding the validity of the officer's demand, based on concerns about the officer's credibility regarding the smell of alcohol.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not conflate objective reasonableness with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, properly assessed the factors for reasonable suspicion, and provided sufficient reasons for his credibility findings.

The Deputy Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson, alleging he falsely responded to questions on past applications and failed to disclose past refusals to register under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not knowingly provide false answers and reasonably assumed the Registrar was aware of his past bankruptcy and motor vehicle dealer registration issues.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, but attached a condition requiring the appellant's lawyer to review his next two renewal applications.

The plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from soliciting clients and employees was previously dismissed.

The defendants sought costs of $15,082.12 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued costs should be in the cause or fixed at a lower amount, and that the defendants unnecessarily complicated the motion.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, noting the presumption that costs of a motion are payable forthwith, especially for interlocutory injunctions.

The court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable, particularly given the plaintiff's own costs outline was significantly higher.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $15,082.12 forthwith.

The plaintiff property management company brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain former employees and their new company from soliciting its clients and employees.

The plaintiff alleged the former employees breached non-solicitation clauses in their employment contracts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious question about whether the defendants were bound by the clauses, there was no evidence of actual solicitation.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as any potential losses could be quantified and recovered through damages.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to hold opposing counsel personally liable for costs under rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed the costs of that motion.

The moving party alleged misconduct by experienced counsel and sought consolidation of his claim with the main costs issues in ongoing guardianship litigation.

The court found the allegations unfounded and determined that the motion unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding and increased litigation expense.

Applying the reasonableness principle in costs assessment, the court fixed substantial costs payable to the successful parties.

The respondent, a former registered securities salesperson, admitted to participating in a boiler room scheme by selling shares of Maitland Capital Ltd. to investors without registration, without a prospectus, and by making prohibited representations.

The Ontario Securities Commission converted the merits hearing into a sanctions hearing based on an agreed statement of facts.

The Commission ordered a three-year trading ban, a permanent telephone solicitation ban, a reprimand, and disgorgement of $91,407.10, representing the commissions the respondent earned from the illegal trades.

The moving party sought leave under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to pursue personal costs claims against opposing counsel in litigation concerning a guardianship and related estate disputes.

The proceeding had already been set down for a costs trial, and a prior order imposed strict timelines requiring notice and particulars before such motions could be pursued.

The court found the moving party failed to comply with those timelines and had not demonstrated the substantial or unexpected change in circumstances required to obtain leave once a matter is set down for trial under Rule 48.04.

The allegations of professional misconduct, negligence, and perjury against counsel were vague, speculative, and unsupported by evidence establishing bad faith or abuse of process.

The court concluded the claims had no reasonable chance of success and granting leave would further delay already protracted proceedings.

Multiple motions arose in estate-related litigation involving allegations of undue influence over an elderly party.

Respondents sought leave to pursue costs against solicitors under Rule 57.07 and to consolidate related actions.

Counsel appointed under s.3 of the Substitute Decisions Act brought a preliminary motion after being unable to meet with the elderly party whose representation was in question.

Evidence suggested possible obstruction and undue influence affecting her ability to obtain independent legal advice.

The court held that the circumstances justified consideration of appointing a litigation guardian and granted leave for the motion to proceed, adjourning all related motions to allow a meeting between the party and s.3 counsel.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his treatment of a witness's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge allowing the witness to use a document to refresh her memory and giving the evidence the weight he deemed appropriate.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision appointing a trust company as her interim guardian of property, pending an application by her daughters to be appointed as guardians.

The moving party argued the motions judge erred by ignoring her valid Power of Attorney and failing to find strong evidence of misconduct before appointing a third party.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, which was based on the incapable person's best interests and allegations of self-dealing.

At a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board ordered both the Licensee and the Registrar to provide mutual disclosure, including witness lists, evidence summaries, and police notes, at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that a patron removed liquor from the premises and a rear fire door was locked contrary to fire safety regulations.

Based on a Joint Submission on Disposition, the Board ordered an 8-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's findings that the respondent was constructively dismissed and that the appellants were motivated by malice when they initiated criminal proceedings against her.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's factual findings were amply supported by the record, including evidence of unilateral changes to employment terms and the appellant's failure to disclose exculpatory information to the police.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order regarding liability for a claim based on delay.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the Agreement and the Bills of Lading had to be read together, requiring the appellant to give 60 days written notice of liability.

The appeal was dismissed.