Michelle Davis

An appeal from an arbitrator's decision in a long-running dispute between law firms regarding a Professional Services Agreement.

The appellants challenged the arbitrator's handling of a solicitor-client privilege objection to spreadsheets and her refusal to remove respondents' counsel who received the allegedly privileged documents.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision to dismiss the privilege motion while reserving the right to reconsider the issue after further evidence, and upheld the decision not to remove counsel.

The court found the arbitrator acted within her discretion and applied the law reasonably to the circumstances.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a contingency fee retainer agreement between Aylmer Meat Packers Inc. and Richard Walter Clare (the "Client") and their former law firm, Harrison Pensa LLP ("HP").

The court found that HP was not entitled to a contingency fee on a judgment obtained by the Client on appeal after new counsel was retained.

The agreement only entitled HP to a contingency fee on damages recovered prior to or at trial.

The court also rejected HP’s claim for compensation under quantum meruit, holding that the enforceable agreement governed the parties’ rights and obligations.

The court dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 motor vehicle collision.

The defendant argued the action was statute-barred, but the court found the limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff received a diagnosis in July 2020 that clarified the severity and cause of her injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff acted diligently and that there was not a sufficient body of evidence to support a claim until the feedback session with Dr. Day.

The action was therefore commenced in time.

A law firm sued a former associate lawyer for $3 million, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and contract after he left to join a competing firm.

The firm sought a declaration that the departing lawyer was not entitled to compensation for unbilled work in progress (WIP) existing at the time of his departure.

The departing lawyer counterclaimed for his share of fees billed and collected post-departure.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the law firm's damages claim, finding the lawyer's actions constituted permissible planning and compliance with professional obligations, not competition.

The court also held that the oral compensation agreement entitled the departing lawyer to his share of fees on files he had carriage of, once those files were billed and collected, regardless of his departure.

A case conference was held to address trial management issues for an upcoming virtual trial concerning a development project and a claim of misfeasance of public office.

The court issued directions regarding the narrowing of issues, the exchange of witness lists and will-say statements, the filing of a joint document brief, and the scheduling of witnesses.

A dispute among siblings arose regarding ownership and disposition of a Florida condominium held in joint tenancy between an elderly incapable mother and one daughter.

The court considered whether a 2004 transfer creating the joint tenancy conveyed a beneficial interest or was subject to a resulting trust, applying the principles in Pecore v. Pecore.

The court held that the gratuitous transfer raised a presumption of resulting trust that the daughter failed to rebut, leaving the beneficial ownership with the mother.

The court ordered that the property be sold to fund the incapable person’s care, subject to the daughter’s right to purchase it at a price reflecting reimbursement for certain renovation expenses.

Costs were awarded to the opposing siblings who were substantially successful.

The trustee in bankruptcy for several related real estate development companies brought applications to determine the priority of claims against the proceeds of a sold property and to set aside various payments and security granted to an investor, Dr. Goldfinger, as transfers at undervalue, fraudulent conveyances, or unjust preferences.

The court allowed some of the proofs of claim while disallowing others or requiring further evidence.

The court dismissed the trustee's claim to set aside a $2.5 million settlement payment to Goldfinger, finding it was made at arm's length and without intent to defraud creditors.

However, the court set aside a $471,000 payment to Goldfinger as a fraudulent conveyance, finding it was made with the intent to defeat another secured creditor, and ordered Goldfinger to repay the amount to the bankrupt estate.

In a bankruptcy proceeding involving the estate of a bankrupt developer, the moving parties sought determination of priorities among claims.

During the hearing, counsel requested that transcripts of viva voce evidence be provided in a fully searchable electronic format for use in the continuation of the hearing.

The court found the request reasonable in modern litigation practice, noting the increasing reliance on electronic transcripts by both counsel and judges.

Given the lack of standardized electronic transcript formats prescribed by the Ministry of the Attorney General, the court ordered that the transcripts be produced in a fully word-searchable electronic format.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Davis Textiles purchased the business of Josh Industries, which was in receivership, under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Davis Textiles had assumed the lease of Josh Industries' vacant plant, purchased some of its sewing machines from the receiver, and hired some of its former employees who applied for jobs.

The Board found that Davis Textiles did not purchase the raw materials, finished goods, trade marks, or licenses of Josh Industries, and did not take over its workforce as such.

The Board concluded that the transaction did not constitute the sale of a business and dismissed the application.