4 total
Plaintiff's counsel removed from record in solicitor negligence action due to being a material witness.
The defendants in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer and his law firm from the record.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff's lawyer was a material witness because he had provided a second opinion to the plaintiff during the underlying litigation and subsequently negotiated its settlement.
Applying the Essa factors, the court found that the lawyer would likely have material evidence regarding the advice given, mitigation, and damages.
The court concluded that the lawyer's dual roles as advocate and witness created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.
The motion was granted and the lawyer and his firm were removed from the record.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $79,140.92 to the applicant following a successful interlocutory injunction motion.
This costs endorsement follows the granting of interlocutory relief to Parkland Corporation in a lease dispute.
The court awards partial indemnity costs to Parkland, finding the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity.
The decision discusses the principles governing costs, including proportionality, misconduct, and the timing of costs awards.
The court granted an interlocutory injunction and a certificate of pending litigation to enforce a commercial lease.
The decision concerns Parkland Corporation’s motion for interlocutory relief to enforce negative covenants in a lease requiring Caledon Fuels Inc. to operate a gas station as an Ultramar station with fuel supplied by Parkland.
The court grants Parkland leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and issues an injunction against Caledon and the purchaser, 16408117 Canada Inc., from breaching the lease.
The ruling addresses the legal tests for a CPL and interlocutory injunction, the effect of actual notice of a lease under the Land Titles Act, and the balance of convenience between the parties.
Appeal dismissed because the parties never formed an enforceable contract for their trucking venture.
This appeal concerned a failed business venture between the appellants (Corridor Transport Inc. and Corridor Transport Limited Partnership) and the respondents (Vittorio Junior Lentini, LTI Logistics Inc., and Loblaw Companies Limited).
The appellants claimed breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty by a director.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no enforceable contract due to fundamental misunderstandings regarding the parties' identities and entitlement to business proceeds, and no conversion as the appellants lacked a possessory interest in the funds.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings or error in law, emphasizing the trial judge's reasonable conclusion that no meeting of the minds occurred on essential contractual terms.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
