Pulat Yunusov

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 (Mediation) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the application dismissed and directed the respondent condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $1,000 for the costs of the proceeding.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 (Mediation) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order dismissing the application and ordering the respondent condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $2,920.30 for the costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiff appealed an associate judge's order compelling him to answer questions refused on discovery based on solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff sued his real estate agents for negligence in a real estate transaction, and in a companion action, sued his real estate solicitor for negligent advice regarding the same transaction.

The court found that by voluntarily putting his reliance on his solicitor's advice in issue in the companion action, the plaintiff had impliedly waived privilege.

Fairness and consistency required that the waiver extend to the present action, as the plaintiff's state of mind and reliance were central to both proceedings, which were to be tried together.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses whether solicitor-client privilege was waived by implication in a real estate dispute involving overlapping claims against a realtor and a lawyer.

The court found that, due to the plaintiff’s virtually identical allegations in two related actions, fairness and consistency required a finding of implied waiver of privilege.

The motion to compel disclosure of the lawyer’s advice and file was granted.

The plaintiff was overwhelmingly successful on a motion for interlocutory injunctive relief, including Mareva and Norwich orders, and sought costs of $118,417.86 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants sought their own costs or, alternatively, that each party bear its own costs.

The court found the plaintiff was the successful party but applied the principle that costs of an interlocutory injunction are preferably reserved to the trial judge.

The court ordered the costs of the motion to be in the cause.

The appellant commenced an action to recover a $50,000 deposit from an aborted real estate transaction.

The respondents counterclaimed for breach of contract.

After years of delay, the motion judge dismissed the appellant's action for delay but did not address the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider that dismissing the claim left the mirror-image counterclaim alive, which was not in the interests of justice.

The dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted to the Superior Court.

The plaintiff, Homestead House Paint Co. Inc., brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant, Wendy Jamieson, from disclosing confidential information in alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

The plaintiff also sought an order sealing the court file and holding hearings in camera.

The court found a serious question to be tried regarding the NDA's breach concerning the supplier's identity, but dismissed the injunction motion due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The court rejected the contractual clause deeming irreparable harm and found the alleged harm to be speculative.

A limited confidentiality order was granted, requiring the redaction of the supplier's name from court materials, consistent with the open court principle.

The plaintiff, as trustee of a living trust, brought an action claiming a constructive trust over a Toronto condominium owned by the defendant, and obtained an ex parte certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The plaintiff moved to amend the claim to add the deceased's estate as a plaintiff, while the defendant moved to discharge the CPL for material non-disclosure and for security for costs.

The court allowed the amendment to add the estate, but discharged the CPL, finding the plaintiff was grossly reckless in failing to disclose the deceased's declaration of trust and will, which did not list the property.

The court also ordered the foreign plaintiff to post security for costs.

The defendant brought a motion seeking security for costs and an order requiring the plaintiff to serve an affidavit of documents in a commercial lease dispute involving allegations of wrongful eviction and a counterclaim for rent arrears.

Before the hearing, the defendant abandoned the request for security for costs and instead sought an order requiring the plaintiff’s principals to undertake personal liability for any costs orders.

The court refused to grant that relief, holding that it had not been requested in the notice of motion, the principals were not parties to the action, and the circumstances did not justify piercing the corporate structure.

The court also found the document-production aspect of the motion premature.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, though reduced due to the plaintiff’s lack of transparency regarding its financial circumstances.