L. O’Connor

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion to compel the defendant general contractor to answer questions refused and provide further answers to undertakings given during an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved a construction dispute over project delays and the termination of the plaintiff's subcontract.

The court first struck several paragraphs from the plaintiff's supporting affidavit for containing improper legal argument.

On the substantive discovery issues, the court ordered the defendant to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals, including producing unredacted copies of requests for information (RFI) logs and progress certificates, finding them relevant to the issues of delay and payment.

The moving parties sought an order preventing a lawyer from acting for the opposing party at trial due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from a prior solicitor-client relationship with the moving party’s principal.

The court considered whether confidential information had been shared during the earlier retainer and applied the principles governing disqualification of counsel, including those articulated in MacDonald Estate v Martin.

The court preferred the evidence of the moving party’s principal that confidential information regarding financial circumstances and litigation strategy had been disclosed.

Given the partnership relationship within the law firm and the absence of any ethical screen, the court found a reasonable risk that such information could be used to the prejudice of the former client.

The integrity of the justice system outweighed the responding party’s right to counsel of choice, and the lawyer and his firm were prohibited from acting in the trial.

Following a five‑day hybrid trial concerning governance disputes within a religious corporation, the court had previously set aside the admission of new members, the election of directors, and the appointment of officers, and imposed conditions for a court‑ordered members’ meeting under s. 297 of the Corporations Act.

The parties subsequently made competing claims for costs.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from appellate authorities on proportionality and fairness, the court assessed the degree of success and the parties’ conduct.

The judge found that both factions contributed to the corporate dysfunction that generated the litigation and unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

Concluding that neither side could properly be regarded as successful, the court declined to award costs.

Members of a Sikh temple incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act brought an action challenging the admission of 23 new members and the election of directors following a disputed board meeting and special members’ meeting.

The court found that the board meeting at which the new members were admitted had been convened using misleading notice and that opposing directors had been led to believe the meeting would not occur due to mediation efforts.

The admission of the new members was therefore conducted in bad faith and declared null and void.

Because those members participated in a subsequent members’ meeting, quorum was lacking and the election of directors and subsequent board appointments were also invalid.

The court issued extensive declaratory relief restoring the prior membership and board composition and ordered governance reforms, including a monitor, audits, training, and conditions before a court‑ordered members’ meeting could be held.