Lisa S. Lutwak

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff, a corporation registered in the Netherlands, sued the defendant for breach of a consulting agreement.

The plaintiff argued that it was forced to litigate in Ontario due to a choice of forum clause and that the motion was delayed.

The court found that the choice of forum clause did not militate against an order for security for costs and that the merits of the claim were neutral.

Although the motion was brought late, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs limited to prospective costs, fixed at $20,000 payable in tranches.

The representative plaintiffs moved for approval of a $2.375 million settlement in a class action concerning the under-dosing of chemotherapy drugs at several hospitals.

The defendants, who supplied and administered the drugs, denied liability, arguing there was no evidence of clinical impact on patient outcomes and that the plaintiffs' psychological harm did not meet the legal threshold for a recognizable psychiatric illness.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks, the lack of evidence showing clinical harm, and the recommendations of experienced class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's requested fees of $400,000.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order approving the plaintiff's discovery plan in a class action for unpaid overtime.

The defendants argued the order conflicted with established principles of relevance in class actions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision on relevance and concluding it was not desirable to grant leave.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted to the respondent for unpaid invoices on a construction project.

The appellant argued it was entitled to set-off monies related to alleged deficiencies on unrelated projects under s. 12 of the Construction Lien Act or by way of equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 12 did not apply because no trust funds were retained, and equitable set-off was unavailable because the projects were entirely separate and unrelated.

The moving plaintiff and third party sought leave to bring a refusals motion and to compel answers to questions refused during discovery after the action had been set down for trial.

The responding defendant consented to answering undertakings and to certain pleading amendments but opposed the refusals relief on the basis that Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure barred the motion without leave.

The court held that once an action has been set down for trial, leave is required to bring a refusals motion and adopted prior authority distinguishing undertakings from refusals.

Applying the established test, the court found the moving parties had not demonstrated a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Leave to bring the refusals motion was denied, while other relief was granted on consent and each party bore their own costs.