Matthew P. Gottlieb

The defendants appealed a master's order compelling answers and document production arising from an examination for discovery in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information and solicitation of a former employer’s client.

The defendants argued the production order was based on unsubstantiated pleadings, speculation regarding misuse of confidential information, and the discredited doctrine of inevitable disclosure.

The court held that relevance for discovery is determined by the pleadings and that the allegations in the statement of claim sufficiently grounded the requested discovery.

The master properly exercised discretion in balancing proportionality and determining that the information sought was relevant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiffs for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation and dismissal of a defendant’s cross-motion to strike affidavit evidence, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought partial-indemnity costs supported by a detailed bill of costs.

The defendant argued that costs should be reserved for the trial judge due to limited financial resources, potential indemnification rights, and the plaintiffs’ CCAA protection.

The court held that impecuniosity, potential indemnification, and speculative trial costs considerations were not valid reasons to deny or delay a costs award.

Partial-indemnity costs were awarded to the successful moving parties.

The plaintiffs, a group of affiliated corporations under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings, brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation against residential property owned by one defendant.

The plaintiffs alleged that corporate funds were improperly used to pay for renovations, maintenance, and improvements to the property and sought a constructive trust and tracing remedies.

The defendants opposed the motion and brought a cross‑motion to strike portions of the affidavit evidence filed in support of the motion.

The court held that the affidavit material was relevant and properly admitted and dismissed the cross‑motion.

Finding that the evidentiary record disclosed triable issues regarding alleged misappropriation of corporate funds and potential unjust enrichment supporting a constructive trust, the court granted leave to issue the Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving party sought production of documents and information held by a court‑appointed receiver in connection with an investigation related to alleged securities fraud proceedings before the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court considered whether the principles governing third‑party production established in R. v. O'Connor and R. v. McNeil applied to records held by a receiver acting as an officer of the court.

It held that although receivers generally are not required to disclose investigative materials beyond their reports, that protection cannot override an accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

Applying the O'Connor framework, the court required the moving party to demonstrate that the requested records were “likely relevant.” Only limited categories of documents met that threshold, including certain materials from lawyers, the accountant, and recovered emails, while most requests were rejected as speculative fishing expeditions.

The applicant, as Note Trustee of the Maple Trust, brought a motion for an order approving a marketing and sale process for the trust's assets following an Event of Default.

The motion was contested by a party who argued that any sale must obtain prior court approval.

The court approved the sale process but ordered that it include a provision requiring prior court approval for any transaction, applying the Soundair principles, to ensure the best possible price is obtained without unnecessary delay.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring that the arbitration clause in its Alliance Agreement with the respondent did not require a party to file a notice of request to arbitrate with the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario to commence arbitration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the arbitration clause.

The Court held that the standard of review for contractual interpretation in this case was correctness, and that the clear wording of the agreement required the arbitration to be conducted under the 'then-current rules' of the Institute, which mandated filing a notice with the Institute to commence proceedings.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a receiver's decision to permit a corporation in receivership to plead guilty in an American criminal trial, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants argued no costs should be awarded as the issues were novel and complex.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the appeal involved a standard review of a Commercial List judge's discretion.

The Court awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amounts at a fair and reasonable level rather than actual costs incurred, payable by Lord Black and Conrad Black Capital Corporation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order directing the receiver to file a Payments Report detailing distributions made by the insolvent companies.

The applicant argued the report could prejudice his ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the receiver's duty is to the economic interests of the estate's stakeholders, not to protect a stakeholder's personal interest in avoiding prejudice in foreign criminal proceedings.

The proposed appeal was found to lack prima facie merit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a claim for negligent investigation against the respondent, alleging the respondent provided false information to the police leading to the appellant's wrongful arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that no duty of care existed, as it was not reasonably foreseeable that the police would arrest the appellant without independently determining reasonable and probable grounds.

A cross-appeal regarding a conspiracy claim was allowed, dismissing the claim with leave to amend to plead better particulars.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to investigate a complaint regarding the reading of the Lord's Prayer during the Assembly's daily proceedings.

The Speaker argued that the Commission lacked jurisdiction due to parliamentary privilege.

The Divisional Court granted the application, holding that the Standing Orders governing the Assembly's proceedings fall within the scope of parliamentary privilege and are immune from outside investigation by the Commission.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal regarding the validity of an automobile insurance policy.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the trial judge and the dissenting appellate judge.

The Court held that the insurance policy was valid and binding in law, had not been transferred or cancelled, and that there was no novation releasing the insurer from its obligations.