Lorne S. Silver

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff estate to produce unredacted solicitor files of the deceased, William Waters, arguing that the "wills exception" to solicitor-client privilege should extend to determine the deceased's intent regarding inter vivos transfers.

The estate claimed the transfers were impressed with a resulting trust, while the defendants asserted they were gifts.

The court found that the previous order allowed for disputes over privilege and that applying res judicata to informal case management directions would inhibit the process.

The court extended the "wills exception" from Geffen v. Goodman Estate to this case, finding ambiguity in the deceased's will regarding the nature of the transfers.

It ordered the production of all information shedding light on whether the transfers were gifts, including information on the deceased's capacity and susceptibility to undue influence, subject to a protective order to prevent a fishing expedition for claims against the solicitor.

The plaintiff, Sabrina Homes Inc. (Buyer), brought a motion for leave to register Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction against properties owned by the defendants (Seller).

The court dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate issues previously determined by Justice Ramsay.

Alternatively, the court found the Buyer failed to satisfy the test for a CPL, specifically regarding the uniqueness of the property and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.

The balance of harm favored the Seller, who faced potential breach of contract and foreclosure if the CPL was granted.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Seller.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants, including a former CEO, from attending within 500 metres of their premises or communicating with staff, and for leave to amend their Statement of Claim.

The court granted the unopposed request to amend the pleadings.

However, the court dismissed the request for injunctive relief, finding that the injunction was not anchored to any pleaded cause of action such as trespass or intimidation.

Furthermore, even if trespass had been pleaded, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, seeking additional security for the discovery stage and for the period from discoveries to trial.

Previously, $45,000 in security had been ordered, with the court finding that 1636833 Ontario Inc. (833) had insufficient assets.

On this motion, the plaintiffs provided new, more comprehensive evidence of 833's financial condition, including significant bank balances, investment accounts, and revenue from an active business relationship.

The court found that 833 now demonstrated sufficient liquid and unencumbered assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award, dismissing the defendants' motions for further security for costs.

The decision reiterated the limits of speculative inquiries into a company's future financial prospects on such motions.

The applicant, a former majority shareholder who now holds a negligible amount of shares, sought leave nunc pro tunc to commence a derivative action on behalf of the respondent pharmaceutical corporation against its directors.

The applicant alleged mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duties, seeking damages for trading losses he suffered when selling his shares.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant could not use a derivative action to recover personal trading losses.

Furthermore, the court held that the action was not in the best interests of the corporation, as it would divert limited financial resources and management time, and lacked support from any current shareholders.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking their statement of claim without leave to amend.

The claim sought to set aside a transfer of real property to the respondent, alleging an oral promise by their parents to gift the property to the appellants' company.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge's reasons sufficient and agreed with the characterization of the claim as a promise to make a gift.

However, the Court held that the motion judge erred by failing to grant leave to amend the pleading under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted leave to amend their statement of claim to plead an oral agreement concerning the property.

Following a jurisdiction motion in which the court stayed an Ontario application concerning rights under a release and settlement agreement, the successful responding party sought costs.

The court considered submissions regarding whether the unsuccessful party should nonetheless avoid a costs award because Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and the forum issue arose from related disputes involving other jurisdictions.

The court rejected the argument that the losing party should not pay costs simply because he reasonably expected to succeed.

Applying ordinary costs principles, the court held that the successful party on the motion was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were fixed in a reduced amount as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The appellant brought motions to review two orders of a single judge: one directing his motion to remove respondents' counsel to be heard immediately, and another dismissing that removal motion with costs.

The respondents brought a motion to review a third order to impose a deadline for the payment of those costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motions, finding the scheduling order practical and the proposed fresh evidence irrelevant.

The Court granted the respondents' motion, ordering the appellant to pay the previously awarded costs and the costs of these motions by a specified date, failing which his appeal would be dismissed.

The applicant, a former officer and director of the respondent mining companies, brought an application in Ontario seeking a determination of his rights to stock options under a Release and Settlement Agreement.

The respondent moved to stay the application, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens, as the respondent intended to allege the applicant breached his fiduciary duties and the agreement in Nevada.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the agreement was made in Ontario.

However, the court concluded that Ontario was forum non conveniens for resolving the omnibus disputes between the parties.

The court temporarily stayed the application for 60 days to allow the respondent to commence an action in British Columbia or Nevada, with the stay to become permanent if such an action is brought.

The appellant, an adult daughter, was made a joint account holder by her father with a right of survivorship.

Following the father's death, her siblings commenced litigation because she did not include the joint accounts in the distribution of the estate.

The trial judge applied a presumption of resulting trust and found no evidence that the father intended to gift the accounts to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the presumption of resulting trust applied to gratuitous transfers to adult children and that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.