Melvyn Solmon

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 7.06(2) to substitute the plaintiff's litigation guardian, alleging the plaintiff's mother was not acting in her best interests.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants manipulated the mentally ill plaintiff into selling her property significantly below market value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the defendants' claims and characterizing the motion as an improper tactical manoeuvre to disrupt the litigation.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.

The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.

The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.

A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.

Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.

The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.

The plaintiff, a Canadian distributor, brought an action against the defendants following the repudiation of a distribution agreement during US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The defendants obtained a temporary restraining order from the US Bankruptcy Court enjoining the Canadian action.

The plaintiff then brought a motion in Ontario seeking to enforce an alleged undertaking made by the defendants to the US court to bring a motion to stay the Canadian action.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding it premature and noting that the US court had already considered the issue and was the appropriate forum to determine its own jurisdiction, emphasizing principles of comity in cross-border insolvencies.

Lawyers under investigation by their professional regulator sought constitutional declarations and procedural protections concerning potential disclosure of client confidential information during disciplinary proceedings.

They argued provisions of the governing statute violated ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter by failing to adequately protect solicitor‑client privilege and requested public interest standing to advance broader constitutional relief.

The court held the application was premature because the administrative process before the regulator’s tribunal had not yet been completed.

The tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional arguments and grant most requested remedies, with courts reviewing the matter only after the administrative process concluded.

The application was dismissed and public interest standing refused.

Investors in real estate development projects brought an oppression application under ss. 161 and 248 of the Business Corporations Act seeking, among other relief, the appointment of an inspector to investigate the use of investor funds.

The evidence showed project funds had been commingled in a separate entity rather than segregated as investors had been led to expect, financial disclosure was deficient, audited financial statements were unavailable, and a dividend was withheld from one preferred shareholder.

The court held that these circumstances raised a prima facie case that reasonable security holder expectations had been defeated and that oppressive conduct may have occurred.

The court ordered the appointment of a court‑appointed inspector and granted additional relief including payment of an unpaid dividend, redemption of preferred shares, and production of a shareholder list.

Appeal from a master's ruling on a refusals motion arising during examinations conducted under rule 39.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with a motion for particulars.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants waived solicitor‑client privilege over their entire litigation file by filing an affidavit from counsel stating that the defendants lacked knowledge necessary to plead.

The court held that filing a solicitor’s affidavit results only in a limited waiver of privilege confined to matters directly placed in issue by the affidavit.

Solicitor‑client privilege remains fundamental and must be interpreted narrowly when assessing waiver.

The master correctly concluded that only documents connected to the affidavit’s subject matter were producible and that broader disclosure of the law firm’s entire file was not required.