Lucas E. Lung

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.

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.

The appellants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, appealed a decision regarding the enforcement of sponsorship debts against eight sponsors whose relatives received social assistance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the government has a duty to collect the full sponsorship debt, it retains a limited discretion to defer enforcement based on a sponsor's circumstances.

In exercising this discretion, the government owes a minimal duty of procedural fairness to notify the sponsor, allow them to explain their circumstances, consider those circumstances, and notify them of the decision.

The Court found that Ontario's debt collection policy did not improperly fetter its discretion and met the requirements of procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The costs were fixed at $45,000 for one group of appellants, $20,000 for another group, and $60,000 for a single appellant, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

Appeal from dismissal of an application challenging the enforcement of immigration sponsorship undertakings after sponsored relatives received Ontario social assistance.

The court held that the federal and provincial governments have a case-by-case discretion whether to enforce sponsorship debt, and that Ontario unlawfully fettered that discretion by applying policies inconsistent with the family class immigration scheme.

The court further held that sponsors are owed procedural fairness before enforcement, including a meaningful opportunity to explain relevant personal and financial circumstances, consideration of those submissions, and notice of the decision made.

The court rejected the argument that undertakings signed under the former immigration statute became unenforceable under the new regime.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario moved for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motions to strike out applications brought by four physicians.

The physicians had applied to the Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of s. 76(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The College argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and the matters should be heard by the administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for striking pleadings and properly concluded it was not plain and obvious the applications would fail, as the Superior Court retains residual jurisdiction over Charter challenges.