Stanley Razenberg

This motion addressed three discovery-related issues: production of information concerning other employees of the defendant V&N GTA Landscaping Inc. (GTA), production of GTA's policy of insurance, and setting aside a certificate of non-attendance obtained against the plaintiff.

The first two issues were resolved by agreement between the parties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the certificate of non-attendance, finding no prejudice to the plaintiff in attending discovery without prior surveillance information and that the agreed-upon discovery schedule did not entitle the plaintiff to complete all undertakings and refusals before her own examination.

The plaintiff seller and defendant buyers both moved for summary judgment in an action arising from a failed $7 million commercial real estate transaction.

The buyers refused to close and terminated the agreement because an outstanding work permit remained on title, which the seller failed to remove or insure over by the contractual deadline.

The seller claimed the buyers repudiated the contract in bad faith and sought forfeiture of the $350,000 deposit plus punitive damages.

The court found that the outstanding work permit was a legitimate concern and a valid objection to title, entitling the buyers to terminate the agreement.

The buyers' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the deposit was ordered returned to them.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her non-earner benefits claim.

The application was filed five days after the two-year limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal made three errors of law: it incorrectly measured the length of delay and prejudice from the date of the insurer's denial rather than the expiry of the limitation period, and it failed to consider new evidence regarding the appellant's bona fide intention to appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision regarding the retrospective application of an amendment to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule capping attendant care benefits.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant's mother's income exceeded the maximum benefit amount, meaning the applicant would continue to receive the maximum benefit regardless of the amendment.

It was also revealed that another insurer, not the respondent fund, was liable to pay the benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as moot, finding that the outcome would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties and that the case lacked the necessary factual foundation to decide the important issues raised.

The plaintiff law firm, Wendy Sokoloff Professional Corporation, brought a motion to remove Joseph Falconeri and his firm, Falconeri Munro Tucci LLP, as counsel of record for the co-defendants Wayde Mahoney, Kevin Mahoney, and Carol Mahoney.

The motion arose from a dispute over unpaid legal fees following a personal injury settlement, where the Sokoloff firm had initially represented the Mahoneys.

The Sokoloff firm alleged conflict of interest, champerty, and maintenance, citing an alleged indemnity agreement between Falconeri and the Mahoneys, and Falconeri's involvement in a prior professional negligence claim against Sokoloff.

The court, applying the principles for removing counsel, found that the integrity of the justice system required the removal of Falconeri Munro Tucci LLP as counsel for the Mahoney defendants due to a perceived conflict of interest, as Joseph Falconeri was a named defendant and a likely witness whose evidence would be necessary for controversial matters at trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of a representative of the defendant Intercontinental Hotels Group (Canada) Inc. (IHG), and an order for re-attendance on discovery.

The parties consented to answering some undertakings.

The court ordered IHG to answer additional undertakings and refusals, finding some questions relevant to the pleadings, including one regarding the reasonableness of having a doorman.

A re-attendance for 1.5 hours was ordered due to the number and nature of outstanding discovery issues.

Costs of $1,500.00 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicants sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision that upheld an arbitrator's exclusion of the applicant's documents and witnesses due to late service, and ordered costs personally against the applicant's lawyers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the refusal to allow an affidavit explaining the delay or in the exclusion of non-expert witnesses.

The court also held that the order for costs against the lawyers personally was reasonable given the blatant disregard of the procedural rules.

Allstate Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion seeking to dismiss Jamie Patino's application as premature or an abuse of process, or alternatively, to narrow its scope.

Patino's application sought declarations regarding Allstate's duty to defend and indemnify him following a motor vehicle accident, particularly concerning an alleged material misrepresentation about vehicle use.

The court denied Allstate's motion to dismiss, finding the application neither premature nor an abuse of process if strictly limited to specific legal questions.

The court ordered that the application would focus on whether Allstate could deny indemnification despite not voiding the policy, and whether a finding of misrepresentation would alter this.

Leave was granted for Patino to amend his application to seek declarations regarding his right to counsel of choice and to direct his defence in a related action.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff claimed permanent impairment of his left arm from a motor vehicle accident, but the defendants sought medical records relating to prior injuries to the same arm in 2004 and 2006.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by weighing evidence to determine relevance rather than relying on the pleadings, which clearly put the pre-existing condition in issue.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested medical records.

The plaintiff's former lawyers brought a motion for leave to appeal a Master's order requiring them to personally pay costs thrown away and motion costs.

The costs were awarded after a law clerk inadvertently failed to book an examination for discovery.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Master failed to apply the second step of the Galganov test, which requires extreme caution before ordering costs against a lawyer personally for an innocent error.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the claim against the municipality was not discoverable until receipt of a police accident report revealing potential roadway maintenance issues and identifying the proper municipal authority.

The court held the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability and did not exercise reasonable diligence in identifying potential defendants, noting a 17‑month delay in obtaining the accident report.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.

The court also found that commencing a second action rather than seeking to amend the existing action to substitute the proper municipality constituted an abuse of process.