Mariam Sharif Moktar

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction over matters arising from the plaintiff's employment governed by a collective agreement.

The plaintiff, a former educational assistant, challenged her termination and the arbitrator's dismissal of her grievance, as well as alleged misconduct by her union and employer.

The court found that all claims either fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board or disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The motion was granted and the claim was struck without leave to amend.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction against May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc., a finding of contempt against May Anis, and a variation of an order to make May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc. solely responsible for the Receiver's fees.

The motion arose from a shareholder and employment dispute where May Anis repeatedly produced forged bank records, lied under oath, and provided false information to the court and an investigative receiver.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, found May Anis in contempt due to her egregious and repetitive dishonest conduct, and ordered her and BNP Advisors Inc. to bear all Receiver's fees.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of the motion.

The court rendered a decision on costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim as disclosing no cause of action and being a vexatious proceeding.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's history of circumventing orders, ignoring prior cost orders, and raising irrelevant issues and unsubstantiated allegations.

The plaintiff did not file responding submissions.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate given the vexatious nature of the proceedings and awarded the defendants $24,963.03 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants, Cheadles LLP, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff, Walter Zanewycz, had sued his former lawyers for breach of contract, negligence, breach of trust, misrepresentation, and fraud, stemming from a solicitor-client relationship that ended in 2009.

The plaintiff alleged recent discovery of forgery.

The court found that the claims were statute-barred, that the plaintiff's assertions of recent discovery were contradictory to prior filings, and that the litigation was vexatious and an abuse of process, characterized by repeated attempts to re-litigate previously determined issues and persistent unsuccessful appeals.

The statement of claim was struck, and the defendants were awarded costs.

The plaintiff, Walter Zanewycz, brought a motion for recusal of Justice Newton, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the judge's prior involvement in related proceedings and alleged knowledge of certain facts.

The court reviewed the history of litigation between Zanewycz and his former lawyers, Cheadles LLP and William G. Shanks, which included account assessments, creditor relief actions, and applications.

Applying the test for reasonable apprehension of bias from Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, the court found no realistic basis for the claim, concluding that an informed person would not perceive bias.

The motion for recusal was dismissed.

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to produce raw data, including handwritten notes, questionnaires, and answers, from a psycho-legal assessment conducted by Dr. Gerald Young.

The plaintiff opposed unconditional disclosure, citing privacy concerns and Dr. Young's proprietary interest in the questionnaires.

The court balanced the public interest in relevant evidence and trial fairness against patient privacy and the integrity of mental health evaluations.

The motion was allowed in part, ordering production of the raw data to defendants' counsel and any retained expert, subject to strict conditions of non-disclosure to the defendants themselves and destruction upon completion of the action or expert retainer.

The plaintiffs, having achieved partial success against individual "HOPE defendants" for breach of loyalty but failing entirely against "Carpenter defendants" for interference with economic interests, sought substantial costs.

The defendants, having largely succeeded, proposed the plaintiffs pay a portion of their costs or that each party bear their own.

The court, emphasizing proportionality and the modest damages awarded against the HOPE defendants, ordered that each party bear their own costs, finding this outcome to be fair and proportionate given the complex "turf warfare" between unions and the disparate success against different defendant groups.