Michael Fenrick

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the appellants' motion for summary judgment and declaring that the respondents' action was commenced within the limitation period.

The appellants argued the claim was discovered earlier, based on a 2015 telephone conversation and a 2005 memorandum concerning tax consequences of a trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her application of the relevant statutory provisions and caselaw, particularly Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick.

The court agreed that the information known to the respondents' lawyer was insufficient to ground a plausible inference of liability without expert advice, thus the limitation period began later, making the action not time-barred.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the plaintiffs' former lawyer had sufficient knowledge of the potential claim more than two years before the action was commenced.

The plaintiffs contended that the information available to their lawyer was insufficient to trigger the limitation period, requiring further expert investigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the information known to the plaintiffs' lawyer was merely a suspicion and not enough to establish a plausible inference of liability, especially given the complex technical nature of the tax issue and conflicting professional opinions.

The limitation period was held to have commenced either when further due diligence was decided upon (February 22, 2016) or when a comprehensive expert opinion was provided (February 24, 2017), both dates being within the two-year period.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing mature trees and commencing construction of a subway station on the historic Osgoode Hall site.

The LSO argued that Metrolinx's actions required municipal approval under s. 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no serious issue to be tried because s. 33(1) does not apply to neighboring property owners or to prescribed public bodies like Metrolinx, which are governed by a separate statutory regime.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the critical public transit project to proceed.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a U.S. resident with no assets in Ontario, in a complex family dispute over trust funds.

The plaintiff claimed impecuniosity and that his action was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated impecuniosity with sufficient financial disclosure and that, while the merits were not decisive, they favored granting security due to prior releases.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs totaling $130,000 on a partial indemnity scale, balancing the plaintiff's access to justice with the defendants' protection against an unenforceable costs award.

The appellant sought to set aside an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant was a fully informed participant in the settlement, acting on legal advice, and knowingly entered into the settlement structured in the manner challenged on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no illegality or impropriety in the enforcement of the settlement and upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce it.

The court also upheld the costs award made by the motion judge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for judicial review against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The application concerned the denial of reimbursement for non-prescription pain medication, cessation of coverage for prescription medication, and denial of benefits for certain dates in 1998.

The application judge found no urgency as required by the Judicial Review Procedure Act and dismissed the application as premature, as the appellant had not exhausted the administrative appeal process.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no legal error in the application judge's analysis regarding the reasonableness of the WSIB's request for updated medical information.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraphs in the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim alleging financial improprieties by the individual defendants.

The defendants argued that under Rea v. Wildeboer, these were derivative claims that could not be pursued in a personal oppression action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims were 'individualized claims' because the plaintiffs sought to adjust the historical earnings of the corporation to determine the fair value of their shares following their alleged wrongful termination.

The court held that in the context of a closely held corporation, there is a defensible basis for overlap between personal and derivative claims.

The plaintiff, Husky, brought an action against its founder, Robert Schad, his new company Athena, and others, alleging misuse of confidential information relating to injection molding machines.

Husky claimed that Athena accessed confidential information from Husky machines placed at a third-party facility (Niigon) and used it to develop competing machines.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred, that most issues were settled during prior negotiations, and that no confidential information was misused.

The court dismissed Husky's claims, finding they were statute-barred as Husky knew of the material facts more than two years before commencing the action.

The court also found that the commercially available machines were not confidential, and that Athena did not make material use of any confidential information from the prototype machines.

Athena's counterclaim for abuse of process and injurious falsehood was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

Three Mexican seasonal agricultural workers were terminated by their employer and repatriated to Mexico.

They sued for wrongful dismissal and alleged violations of their rights under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights, claiming they were 'privately deported' without procedural fairness.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the constitutional and Bill of Rights claims.

The court struck the Charter and Bill of Rights claims, finding that the pleadings did not contain sufficient material facts to support a deprivation of liberty or security of the person under s. 7, nor discrimination under s. 15.

The court also struck the contractual claims against Canada and F.A.R.M.S. as they were not parties to the employment contract.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Charter claims.