Lucas Lung

The applicant appealed a Master's orders striking portions of her notice of motion and awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was filed out of time without a motion for an extension.

Furthermore, the court held that the Master made no palpable and overriding error in striking claims for costs against opposing counsel and unparticularized allegations of professional misconduct.

Leave to appeal the costs decision was also denied, and partial indemnity costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim appealed a Master's order granting the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim leave to issue a third party claim against CBC and CBRE.

The appellants argued that the third party claim for contribution and indemnity was legally untenable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly applied the low threshold akin to a motion to strike, and properly concluded that the third party claim was supported by Rules 29.01(b) and (c) based on independent claims for breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

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.

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.