Matthew Benjamin Lerner

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its copyright claim under s. 13(3) of the Copyright Act over competing software secretly developed by a former employee.

The trial judge found the software was not created "in the course of employment" because the employee's actual responsibilities were limited to developing the employer's existing software, he was not directed to create new products, and the employer did not expend resources on the competing software's development.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that the proper test under s. 13(3) focuses on the employee's actual assigned responsibilities, not the class of work the employer could have directed, and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The applicant appealed an arbitration award ordering it to pay damages for breach of a commercial parking management contract.

The applicant argued the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply proper contractual interpretation principles to a force majeure clause regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and by failing to apply the correct test for equitable set-off.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly focused on the words of the contract and made factual findings that precluded the equitable set-off defence.

The arbitration award was upheld.

The appellant commercial landlord appealed from the Divisional Court's order quashing a motion judge's production order that had found the respondent tenants had impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege over legal advice received when entering into a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding three errors by the Divisional Court: applying a correctness standard of review instead of palpable and overriding error, misreading the motion judge's reasons as based on the original rather than amended pleadings, and failing to recognize that even the amended defence still placed reliance on the respondents' understanding of their legal position.

The court clarified that deemed waiver of privilege does not require explicit reference to legal advice and provided a five-point summary of the applicable legal principles.

In a landmark CCAA proceeding involving Hudson's Bay Company, the court declined to approve the assignment of 25 major retail department store leases across Canada to a new tenant, Ruby Liu Commercial Investment Corp., despite the transaction representing the highest bid and generating approximately $50 million in net proceeds for creditors.

The court found that the proposed assignee failed to meet the reasonableness standard under section 11.3(3) of the CCAA, particularly regarding its ability to perform the substantial and ongoing obligations under the leases.

The decision emphasizes that section 11.3 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, and that the court must balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the contractual counterparties (landlords) who would be compelled into a long-term relationship with an untested and undercapitalized purchaser.

The court also rejected the applicants' arguments that certain lease provisions constituted ipso facto clauses violating the anti-deprivation rule and section 34 of the CCAA.

Self-represented plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action arising from the care and treatment of their son at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre in November 2009.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against Dr. Jagger, Dr. Nigro, and the Hospital on the basis that the plaintiffs had no expert evidence to support allegations of negligence.

The court granted the motions, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide expert evidence establishing the standard of care, breach of that standard, and causation.

The court awarded costs to the successful defendants.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

The court considered whether a 2024 capital call made by the general partner of a real estate development limited partnership was valid under the partnership agreements and the Limited Partnerships Act.

The applicant, Dream Impact, argued the call was invalid and that it had not defaulted, or, alternatively, that any default was cured by other partners' contributions.

The court found the capital call was valid, Dream Impact defaulted by not contributing, but that after the other partners funded Dream Impact’s share and its interest was diluted, there was no continuing default.

The applicant’s put notice was found invalid.

The applicant, HomeLife/Cimerman Real Estate Ltd., sought a declaration that the respondent, Liberty Market Tower Inc., was obliged to pay it a commission in relation to the sale of a condominium unit.

The dispute centered on confusion over which real estate agent represented the purchaser, Mehdi Ajorlou.

The court found that Liberty had a binding agreement with Ajorlou to change the agent of record from Nejad to Ahmadipour, and a binding agreement with HomeLife to register Ahmadipour as the agent of record.

The court ordered Liberty to pay the commission to HomeLife and awarded costs.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to produce their former lawyers' file based on a deemed waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The motion judge had found that the appellants waived privilege by pleading they signed a lease extension 'without legal advice', and that they could not 'unwaive' this privilege by subsequently amending their pleadings to remove that assertion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the test for deemed waiver to the amended pleadings, which no longer made the absence of legal advice a material issue.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $2,191.64.

The applicant employer sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and confidentiality clauses against a former employee who resigned and joined a competitor.

The employee had signed an employment agreement and later a shareholder agreement containing broader restrictive covenants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were reasonable or enforceable, as they were overly broad and ambiguous.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm, as the applicant's claims of misused confidential information were speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Wilson J. dated August 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The plaintiff, One York Street Inc., brought a motion seeking production of the former counsel's file for the defendants, 2360083 Ontario Limited and LCIL Ltd., and other discovery-related orders.

The defendants had initially pleaded lack of legal advice regarding a lease and its extension, but later withdrew this pleading.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants had waived solicitor-client privilege by asserting affirmative defenses of misrepresentation and placing their state of mind in issue.

The court applied a two-step test for deemed waiver of privilege, finding that the legal advice was relevant to the defendants' reliance on alleged misrepresentations and that the defendants had made the receipt of advice an issue through their pleadings.

The court granted the motion for production of the Fogler's file, deeming privilege waived due to fairness considerations.

The landlords brought a motion for default judgment against their former commercial tenant for breach of a lease agreement.

The court found the tenant liable based on deemed admissions from the statement of claim.

Damages were awarded for arrears of rent, lost future rent (mitigated by re-leasing), re-leasing commission costs, amounts paid to discharge a lien, and amounts paid to a secured creditor.

The court declined to award commission costs from the original lease or the leasehold improvement allowance, deeming them not caused by the breach or a potential windfall.

The appellant, Oslyn Lewis, appealed the dismissal of his action for a real estate commission, which was granted by a motion judge on summary judgment due to the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in finding no tolling agreement, in not allowing him to adduce evidence of psychological incapacity, and in applying the discovery rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision.

The court affirmed the strict test for tolling agreements, found the fresh evidence regarding incapacity insufficient and inconsistent with the appellant's prior actions, and distinguished the case from situations involving running accounts for limitation purposes.

The appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, Carolyn Rose Jaroli, sued Dr. Dorie-Anna Dueck, a medical oncologist, for negligence in recommending chemotherapy (specifically Taxol) for her breast cancer, alleging it caused her to develop peripheral neuropathy.

The court found that Dr. Dueck met the standard of care, noting the challenging circumstances due to a lost sentinel lymph node and the prevailing medical guidelines in 2014.

The court preferred the defendant's expert testimony, which supported Dr. Dueck's clinical judgment.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that her current, long-term peripheral neuropathy symptoms were caused by the Taxol treatment, as opposed to other pre-existing health conditions like diabetes and osteoarthritis.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The plaintiff suffered a fractured femur and a pulseless leg following a motorcycle accident.

He was treated in the emergency room by the defendant physician, who failed to urgently transfer him to a trauma centre or communicate the pulseless nature of the limb to the trauma team leader.

Due to the delay in transfer, the plaintiff's leg became unsalvageable and was amputated.

The court found the defendant physician breached the standard of care and that this breach caused the amputation.

The court awarded the agreed-upon damages without deduction for statutory accident benefits or OHIP subrogated claims.

The plaintiff, Bay-Yorkville Developments Ltd. (BYDL), brought a motion to consolidate its action against Ferguson-Neudorf Glass Inc. (FNG) with a pre-existing main action involving Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2282.

FNG opposed the consolidation and sought to schedule a summary judgment motion on limitations grounds.

The court granted the consolidation, finding that the actions shared common questions of law and fact, arose from the same transactions, and that consolidation would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and promote efficiency.

The court further ruled that FNG's summary judgment motion should be heard only after discoveries were completed, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive record in complex construction litigation.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, the moving party brought a motion seeking an order to direct the Monitor to engage in mediation regarding its appeal of a Claims Officer's decision.

The Claims Officer had upheld the Monitor's disallowance of the moving party's $9.8 million claim for loss of commercial value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the existing claims process provided an adequate mechanism for resolving the dispute through the pending appeal.

The court also noted that the request for mediation was made too late, as it was brought only after the Claims Officer had already determined the matter on its merits.

The appellants, a group of subcontractors and a bank, appealed an application judge's decision that rescission of surety bonds might be possible even if it affects innocent third parties.

The bonds were issued by Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. for a large construction project, but Zurich later discovered alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and collusion that induced it to issue the bonds.

The appellants sought a declaration that rescission was unavailable as a matter of law due to the involvement of innocent third parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that prejudice to third parties is not an absolute bar to rescission, especially in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, and that such a determination requires a full factual record at trial.