M. Solmon

The defendant brought a motion for leave to examine two third-party witnesses in advance of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion for possession of mortgaged property.

The defendant argued the witnesses had evidence relevant to his claim that the plaintiff fraudulently misrepresented her financial position prior to signing their separation agreement, entitling him to equitable set-off.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed evidence was not relevant to the enforcement of the separation agreement.

Furthermore, the court held that the issue of financial disclosure had already been conclusively determined in prior family law proceedings, and issue estoppel applied to prevent re-litigation.

The moving parties requested to schedule a motion to bar a witness from testifying at the upcoming trial, alleging the witness had previously perjured himself and ignored court orders.

The case management judge declined to schedule the motion, finding that admissibility of evidence is a matter for the trial judge.

The judge emphasized that allowing the interlocutory motion would only cause further delay and tactical gamesmanship in an already protracted litigation.

The applicants sought a penalty for the respondent, who was previously found in contempt for multiple breaches of six court orders related to the disclosure of financial information for several franchise businesses.

The court found that the respondent deliberately and continuously flouted the orders to frustrate the applicants' ability to monitor the businesses, which ultimately lost all value.

The court sentenced the respondent to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling between 18 and 21 months less a day, and ordered him to pay substantial indemnity costs of $369,644.26.

The applicants brought motions for contempt against the respondents, specifically Fateh Singh Sidhu, for breaching eight court orders related to the disclosure of financial and operational information regarding several Popeye's franchises.

The court found that the orders were clear and unequivocal, and that Sidhu deliberately and willfully disobeyed them.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Sidhu was in civil contempt and adjourned the matter for a penalty hearing.

The applicant commenced an action and an application following the termination of a services agreement, arguing the arbitration clause did not survive termination.

The respondent moved to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration.

The court applied the competence-competence principle, finding it was arguable that the dispute fell within the arbitration clause and that the clause survived termination.

The court granted the motion to stay the action against the corporate respondent under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, and stayed the action against the individual defendants under the Courts of Justice Act, leaving the jurisdictional challenges to be determined by the arbitral tribunal.

Following dismissal of a discovery motion seeking answers to refused questions on examinations related to a motion for particulars, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $13,000, while the plaintiff argued for a significantly reduced amount.

Applying the discretionary framework under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality and fairness.

Considering the extensive materials, length of the hearing, and the importance of the issues, the court found the defendants largely entitled to their claimed costs but applied a modest reduction for unspecified time responding to undertakings.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion seeking answers to numerous questions refused on examinations conducted in connection with a pending motion for particulars in a professional negligence and breach of contract action against former lawyers.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants’ affidavit asserting lack of knowledge regarding certain particulars waived solicitor-client privilege over the defendants’ files and related information.

The court held that any waiver of privilege was limited to the knowledge addressed in the affidavit at the time it was sworn and did not extend to the entirety of counsel’s files.

The requested questions and document production exceeded the scope of the limited waiver and intruded upon solicitor-client privilege.

The court dismissed the refusals motion and confirmed the propriety of the defendants’ redactions and document production.