Max Elijah Kulman Samuels

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of a bill assessment proceeding against the respondent law firm.

The assessment had been adjourned sine die pending the outcome of a separate negligence action against the firm, which was ultimately dismissed.

The firm argued the assessment should not be restored because the negligence trial already determined the firm's conduct.

The court rejected this argument, noting that while the finding of no negligence is res judicata, an assessment officer must consider other factors under the Cohen test to determine the reasonableness of fees.

The court granted the motion to set aside the dismissal but denied costs to the applicant because his non-lawyer daughter submitted fake case law in his factum.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the corporate responding party and $5,000 to the individual responding parties.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion for injunctive relief brought by Mondee, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Voyzant Inc. and several individual defendants.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to Mondee, primarily the return and destruction of its information, but dismissed broader relief sought against the defendants.

The court found that the defendants were more successful on the substantive issues and awarded costs to Voyzant Inc. and the non-Binning departing employees, while denying costs to Jasvinder Binning due to his conduct.

The court declined to award Mondee its costs, holding that costs should generally be reserved to the trial judge where a trial is likely.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a summary judgment order arising from a mortgage default.

The appellant borrower argued that the respondent lender breached its duty of good faith by failing to cancel building permits to obtain a partial refund before enforcing its security through a power of sale.

The Court of Appeal held that the lender was not contractually obligated to realize on its security in any particular order, and cancelling the permits would have reduced the property's value.

Consequently, the motion judge did not err in finding that the lender acted reasonably and in good faith to maximize its recovery.