Matthew Karabus

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.

The succeeding estate trustees moved under Rule 59.06 to vary prior costs awards made after dismissal of their contempt motion regarding document production under an estate judgment.

They argued accidental slip, omission, and newly discovered facts, including post-endorsement waiver of privilege over lawyer file materials.

The court held Rule 59.06 is exceptional, does not permit a re-argument or review of judicial reasoning, and found no error in expressing the court’s manifest intention.

The court also found no new fact justifying variation and dismissed the motion.

An anti-SLAPP motion brought by directors of MediPharm Labs Corp. to dismiss a libel action arising from a lawyer's letter sent during a proxy contest.

The letter, authored by counsel and approved by the defendants, raised concerns about the plaintiffs' solicitation activities, potential securities law violations, and market manipulation.

The court found the expression related to matters of public interest, the plaintiffs failed to establish substantial merit to their claim, and the defendants had valid defences including qualified privilege, fair comment, responsible communication, and truth.

The motion was granted and the claim dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a contempt motion brought by succeeding estate trustees against former estate trustees for alleged breach of a document production order.

The court awarded costs to the successful respondents (former estate trustees), payable from the estate assets rather than personally by the applicants.

The court rejected the applicants' argument that success was divided and clarified that contempt motions must be used as a last resort, not a routine enforcement tool.

The court also addressed the principles governing costs awards in estate litigation and the entitlement of estate trustees to indemnification for reasonably incurred legal costs.

This decision concerns cross-motions for production in a complex commercial dispute involving Paragon Protection Ltd., Tamstu-Harjon Holdings of Canada Limited, and related parties.

The central issue was the scope of privilege over various documents, including those arising from related estate litigation and legal advice received over several decades.

The court clarified the law on waiver of privilege, settlement privilege, and the production of documents, granting and denying relief in part to both sides.

This decision concerns two related shareholder applications under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving SpassMed Inc. and its affiliates.

The court reviews the procedural history, including consolidation of the applications, amendments to the relief sought, and the appointment of an interim monitor.

Due to significant disputes of fact and credibility, the court orders that the consolidated application be converted to an action to allow for a full trial process.

Mr. Langstaff, a defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, moved to amend his counterclaim to add three senior managers of the corporate plaintiffs (Senior Management) as parties, increase exemplary damages, and add claims for defamation, unlawful means, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The motion was opposed on the basis that the proposed amendments were out of time due to limitation periods.

The court denied leave to add Senior Management as parties, finding that the material facts supporting their personal liability were known to Mr. Langstaff by January 2018 or September 2019, and thus the limitation period for adding parties had expired.

However, the court granted leave to increase exemplary damages and to add the new causes of action (defamation, unlawful means, intrusion upon seclusion) against the existing defendants, as the material facts for these claims were already pleaded within the limitation period.

The defendants, Jonathan Rosenthal and Benjamin Barrett, acting as Estate Trustees of Cyril Hirsch Rosenthal's Estate, brought a motion seeking an order to lift the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01(8) for certain documents ("Pervez Productions") disclosed by Paragon Protection Ltd. in this proceeding.

They sought leave to use these documents in a related Estate Proceeding and a pending contempt motion against a former estate trustee, Syed Pervez.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice outweighed any potential prejudice to Paragon, especially given the close relationship between the proceedings and the fact that the documents were already ordered to be produced and were relevant.

The defendants by counterclaim (West Face Capital Inc., Gregory Boland, and Bruce Langstaff) moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the plaintiffs by counterclaim (The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Callidus Capital Corporation, and Newton Glassman) from removing assets from Ontario.

The moving parties alleged that Mr. Glassman was relocating to the Bahamas and dissipating assets to avoid potential judgments arising from a massive corporate espionage and defamation campaign.

The court found that while the moving parties established a strong prima facie case of deceitful and tortious conduct by Mr. Glassman, they failed to prove a real risk that assets were being removed with the specific intent to defeat creditors.

The court also found the moving parties delayed in bringing the motion and failed to establish irreparable harm.

The motions for a Mareva injunction were dismissed.

At a case conference, the defendants sought to schedule a short motion to strike the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

The court declined to hear the substantive motion to strike at the case conference, noting that while Rule 50.13 allows for procedural orders and some interlocutory relief to expedite matters, it is inappropriate to dismiss an action entirely without the benefit of factums or case law.

The case conference was adjourned to allow the parties to consider their options, including a potential summary trial.

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.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 5.04(2) to amend the title of proceedings to correct an alleged misnomer, seeking to substitute 'Downtown Auto Collision Centre Inc.' for the named plaintiff 'Dealer’s Choice Preferred Collision Centre Inc.'.

The action alleged breach of a 2013 agreement.

The court found that the defendants had specifically rejected the inclusion of Downtown Auto as a party to the agreement during negotiations.

Applying the 'litigating finger' test, the court concluded the defendants would have had no reason to think the intended plaintiff was Downtown Auto.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The applicants, owners of cottage properties in Tiny Township, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from interfering with their use of a grassy area between their properties and the beach.

The applicants claimed exclusive possession of the grassy area for decades, while the municipality claimed ownership based on a 1931 dedication.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding ownership, that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm through loss of enjoyment and potential environmental impact, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) that had been registered against a commercial property.

The CPL was originally granted ex parte to Olympia Trust Company, but was never registered.

Instead, a new entity, Bald Eagle Inc., which was never formally added as a plaintiff, obtained and registered a CPL.

Relying on a recent related decision confirming the validity of the underlying mortgage sale, and noting the procedural irregularities in obtaining the CPL, the Master granted the motion and ordered the CPL vacated forthwith.

The applicant held a third mortgage on a property and challenged the sale of the property by the assignee of the first mortgage, arguing the assignee failed to issue a fresh notice of sale.

The applicant moved to convert the application into an action to add allegations of fraud, while the respondents moved to dismiss the application.

The court granted the motion to convert the application into an action, finding the record insufficient to deny the investors the ability to pursue their claims.

However, the court ruled on the legal issue, holding that under the Mortgages Act, an assignee is not required to issue a fresh notice of sale if the interested parties received written notice of the assignment.