Lucas E. Lung

Tadiem Inc., as plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim, sought leave under Rule 29.02(1.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to issue a third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and CBRE Limited.

The proposed third-party claim was in response to Allied's counterclaim alleging intentional interference with economic relations and defamation, based on statements Tadiem allegedly made to CBC and CBRE during lease negotiations.

Allied opposed the motion, arguing the claim was fatally flawed and untimely.

The court granted leave, finding no undue prejudice to Allied and that the third-party claim was tenable, arising from the same incidents and raising overlapping factual issues, thus preventing multiplicity of proceedings and risk of inconsistent findings.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a consent motion for an order requiring the Member to produce an investigation report and interview transcripts related to alleged misconduct in Nunavut.

The College had been unable to obtain the documents directly from the Nunavut Department of Education.

The Member consented to producing the documents, provided he was ordered to do so by the Discipline Committee to remain compliant with legal obligations from another proceeding.

The Committee granted the motion, finding it would promote a fair and effective hearing, assist in assessing the merits of the allegations, and serve the public interest without causing prejudice.

A band member leased lands from the Walpole Island First Nations Band Council to operate a hunting camp and made substantial improvements including constructing a lodge.

The central dispute concerned whether the band member was entitled to credit against outstanding rental payments for the cost of improvements made.

The trial judge awarded credit of $532,500 for improvements plus a $40,000 deposit, less $430,000 in rent owing, resulting in a judgment of $142,500 in the band member's favour.

The band appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to apply section 2(3) of the Indian Act, which requires Band Council resolutions for binding arrangements.

The appeal court upheld the trial judgment, finding that the Band Council had undertaken to credit the band member for leasehold improvements and that the band member was entitled to aggravated damages for an improper eviction.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction against the spouse of the debtors' principal and to repatriate misappropriated HST funds.

The debtors had concealed a $986,594.96 HST refund and diverted it to an account controlled by the spouse.

An intervenor claimed the funds were repayment for a loan, but the court dismissed this as a fraudulent attempt to divert the funds.

The court found the Receiver made full and frank disclosure, was not required to commence an action against the spouse first, and did not need to provide an undertaking as to damages due to the Receivership Order.

The motion was granted, the injunction extended, and immediate repatriation of the funds ordered.

The plaintiffs, VoIP service providers, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from suspending network carrier services and to allow the migration of telephone numbers without paying port-out fees.

The court determined the requested relief was a mandatory injunction, requiring a strong prima facie case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of contract or intentional interference with economic relations, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court also noted the plaintiffs did not come to court with clean hands due to unpaid invoices.

Following a motion in a civil proceeding, the defendants sought costs against the self‑represented plaintiff.

The plaintiff did not provide submissions on the issue of costs.

The court considered the defendants’ submissions and concluded that an award of costs was fair and reasonable.

Each defendant was awarded $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court also dispensed with the requirement that the defendants obtain the plaintiff’s approval of the form and content of the dismissal and costs order.

The applicants, claiming to be victims of a Ponzi scheme, sought a disclosure order under section 17 of the Securities Act to obtain transcripts and materials from a Commission investigation.

They sought these materials to assist in a civil action against their former lawyers, alleging breach of fiduciary and professional duties during the investigation.

The Commission found that, unlike typical cases where disclosure is sought against the subjects of an investigation, the applicants sought disclosure against their own lawyers regarding their conduct before the Commission.

Finding no appreciable confidentiality interest remaining and no risk to the concluded investigation, the Commission held it was in the public interest to authorize disclosure of the section 13 transcripts and related communications.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against multiple defendants under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating the appeal itself may be dismissed on similar grounds.

The Court found the appellant's pleading contained no intelligible claims against the respondents and sought non-justiciable relief regarding the redesign of Ontario's social welfare and legal services systems.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendants brought motions arising from a self-represented plaintiff's failed purchase of a condominium unit and the subsequent release of deposit monies to the vendor.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the vendor's solicitors, holding they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff in an arm's-length transaction where she had her own counsel, were not parties to the agreement, and had lawfully dealt with the deposit funds.

The court also struck the claim against the regulator under Rule 21, holding it owed no private law duty of care and that the pleading failed to allege bad faith sufficient to overcome statutory immunity under s. 9 of the Law Society Act.

The pleading was additionally described as a rambling narrative contrary to proper pleading principles and one that would also have been struck under Rule 25.11 without leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a decision ordering the return of US $250,000 held in trust by the respondent law firm to the respondent client.

The appellant argued the funds were impressed with a trust in its favour and that the application judge erred in denying an adjournment to cross-examine a deponent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a trust or escrow agreement and concluding the appellant had ample opportunity to cross-examine prior to the hearing but made a tactical decision not to do so.

The appellants appealed an order that included a final declaration regarding the applicability of the Repair and Storage Liens Act, which was made during an interlocutory motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the declaration was not intended to be a final determination and deprived the appellants of a substantive defence at a preliminary stage.

Despite procedural errors by the appellants, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration in the interest of justice, but awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent.

The appellants, two Black lawyers, were aggressively asked for identification in a lawyers' lounge by a librarian who did not question anyone else.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found this constituted racial discrimination.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the tribunal applied the wrong test and reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the tribunal's decision, holding that the Divisional Court erred by requiring a 'causal nexus' for discrimination and by confusing the legal burden of proof with the shifting evidential burden.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike a paragraph of the defendants’ fresh as amended statement of defence asserting that the claim was statute-barred under the limitation period.

The plaintiff argued the issue had already been determined on an earlier motion and that the defendants were estopped from relitigating it.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the earlier endorsement constituted a final determination of the limitation issue, particularly given the limited reasons and absence of a formal order.

The court also noted that the plaintiff had taken significant fresh steps in the litigation after the defence was served and had not complied with earlier procedural timelines.

The motion to strike was dismissed, leaving the limitation defence to be determined on a fuller evidentiary record at summary judgment or trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the defendants and a non-party corporation for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the delivery of aircraft engine logbooks.

The moving party argued the materials had been removed or withheld in breach of orders compelling their production.

The court held that contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found the evidence against the non-party was entirely circumstantial with no plausible motive established.

While the evidence suggested it was possible the individual defendant removed the logbooks, the court concluded the record did not establish the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt due to alternative explanations and lack of direct evidence.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

Following dismissal of a defendant law firm’s summary judgment motion in a securities class proceeding, the court addressed costs of the motion.

The plaintiff sought $150,000 in partial indemnity costs, asserting extensive preparation and the importance of the motion.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court considered indemnity principles, proportionality, complexity, and the parties’ reasonable expectations.

Because the motion raised novel issues that would ultimately be determined at trial and did not resolve the merits, the court fixed costs but ordered them payable in the cause.

Costs were set at $100,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant was convicted of breaching s. 31(2) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

He was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to the vendor of the relevant property.

The appellant appealed the restitution order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the restitution order, holding that a finding of loss is a necessary precondition to imposing a restitution order, and the evidentiary record did not establish that the vendor suffered a loss.

In a certified securities class action arising from a take‑over bid, the defendant law firm moved for summary judgment dismissing negligence and statutory misrepresentation claims.

The plaintiff alleged that a partner of the firm, who acted as counsel to the bidder and sat on its board, participated in preparing a take‑over circular containing misrepresentations contrary to s. 131 of the Securities Act.

The court held that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the law firm owed a duty of care to shareholders who received and relied on the circular.

The court further held that the question of whether a law partnership could be vicariously liable under the Partnerships Act for a partner’s statutory liability as a corporate director should also proceed to trial.

Summary judgment was refused because the issues were novel and required a full factual record.

Following a successful motion to amend a statement of claim to add new parties under Rule 5.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs sought costs against the proposed defendants who opposed the amendment.

The plaintiffs requested partial indemnity costs with a portion on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a prior offer to settle.

The court held that the offer to settle contained no element of compromise because it was served before the responding parties filed materials and before the plaintiffs were entitled to costs.

Applying the principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis and declined to consider the offer to settle.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add several new defendants, including an introducing broker, after discovering their involvement in the loss of the plaintiffs' investments.

The proposed broker defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claims against them were not tenable at law.

The Master granted the motion, finding that the proposed negligence claims were not clearly impossible of success and that the duty of care analysis should be left for a full evidentiary record.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding they discriminated against the respondents, two Black men, by asking them for identification in a lawyers' lounge.

The Divisional Court quashed the Tribunal's decision, finding no evidence of differential treatment or a causal nexus to race.

The Court held that the Tribunal improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the applicants to provide a non-discriminatory explanation for routine identification checks without the respondents first establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.