Nancy J. Tourgis

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for an assessment of the respondent law firm's accounts, the respondent sought costs on a composite partial, substantial, and full indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicants' persistence in making unfounded and scurrilous allegations against the integrity of the late Edward Greenspan and his firm justified an award of full indemnity costs.

The court reduced the claimed amount by disallowing fees for work performed by the represented clients themselves and for a settled security for costs motion, ultimately awarding the respondent $150,262.92 all-inclusive, plus $1,500 for costs submissions.

The applicants sought an assessment of the legal accounts rendered by the respondent criminal defence law firm, alleging overcharging and breach of fixed-price and maximum-price retainer agreements.

The court found no fixed-price agreement existed for the preliminary inquiry and that the firm did not overcharge under the maximum-price contract for the trial phase.

The court also held that allegations of deficient legal services were barred by issue estoppel, having been dismissed in prior criminal proceedings.

Finding no special circumstances to justify an assessment outside the statutory limitation period, the application was dismissed.

Costco brought an application to enforce an international arbitral award and a U.S. District Court judgment against TicketOps for failing to remit funds owed to suppliers.

TicketOps opposed the application and brought a motion to convert it into an action, arguing a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns, including an allegation of bias because the arbitrator was Facebook friends with Costco's U.S. counsel.

The court dismissed TicketOps' motion and granted the application, finding no valid grounds under the Model Law to refuse recognition and enforcement of the arbitral awards.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for settlement and fee approval in a certified class proceeding against the defendant developer regarding abortive purchases of hotel condominium units.

The court approved the $5.75 million settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it was a modest success given the litigation risks.

The court also approved class counsel's fee of $2.2 million, with $1.25 million payable immediately and a $950,000 holdback pending final distribution.

A motion by former, disqualified class counsel to approve a fee-sharing agreement with current class counsel was dismissed, as the former counsel had been disqualified, assumed no ongoing risk, and provided no services under the current retainer.

The parties in a certified class proceeding regarding purchasers of hotel units in the Trump Tower sought a consent order approving the form and content of the proposed Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing.

The court reviewed the proposed notice plan, which included direct mail, email, a dedicated website, and a Facebook page to reach geographically dispersed class members.

Finding the notice and notice plan satisfactory under section 27.1(8) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court granted the order.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion for directions to approve the sale of a commercial property belonging to the deceased's estate.

The sale was supported by one residual beneficiary but opposed by the other, who argued the property was undervalued.

The court applied the principles for approving a sale by a court-appointed receiver or trustee, finding that the ETDL had the power to sell, acted in good faith, and made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price by exposing the property to the market.

The court approved the sale, concluding it was in the best interests of the estate, and awarded costs to the ETDL and the supporting beneficiary.

The defendant 2613497 Ontario Inc. moved under Rule 37.14 to set aside a Mareva injunction and discharge Certificates of Pending Litigation, arguing the original order was obtained without notice and without full and fair disclosure.

The court found that the defendant's lawyers of record had participated in case conferences and filed responding materials for the original motion, establishing that the defendant had notice.

As the motion was not made without notice, Rule 37.14 did not apply, and the court dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to revise a conditional Certification Order, approve the Notice of Certification, and determine costs.

The court found it unnecessary and inappropriate to revise the Certification Order, as it was properly taken out and there was no mistake.

The court approved a modified Notice of Certification and directed the parties to make written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs in a conditionally certified class action sought court approval for new Class Counsel, a precondition for certification.

The defendant withdrew its decertification motion and consented to the appointment.

The court appointed Flaherty McCarthy LLP and Mack Lawyers as Class Counsel, rendering the action unconditionally certified.

The plaintiff, the former manager of the defendant investment fund, sued for fees and damages following the termination of its management agreement.

The defendant fund counterclaimed, alleging the manager was terminated for cause due to material breaches of the standard of care, particularly regarding its handling of the fund's liquidity crisis and its recommendation to enter into a high-interest loan rather than suspending redemptions.

The court found that the manager materially breached the standard of care, justifying the termination.

However, the fund's counterclaim for damages was dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The manager was awarded certain unpaid fees accrued prior to termination.

The plaintiff, a senior staff accountant, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress after her employment was terminated following a period of workplace conflict and medical leave.

The court found that the employer had acted professionally and in good faith throughout, dismissing the claims for bad faith, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' salary in lieu of notice.

Applying the principles from Sylvester, the court held that short-term disability benefits paid directly by the employer during the notice period should be deducted from the damages, but long-term disability benefits paid by a third-party insurer should not be deducted.

The applicant, convicted of two counts of second degree murder and awaiting a further murder trial, sought a publication ban on evidence and credibility findings arising from an earlier application under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code for access to seized funds to pay legal fees.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to grant a ban and applied the common law Dagenais/Mentuck test balancing freedom of expression against the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The court concluded that publication of the applicant’s admissions of criminal activity and the court’s adverse credibility findings posed a serious risk to the proper administration of justice in the upcoming jury trial.

A temporary ban was therefore necessary and proportionate.

The court ordered a time‑limited publication ban on the evidence, the fact of the application, and the earlier decision until completion of the pending murder trial.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its action for a debt owed under a share purchase agreement and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged unwritten collateral agreements and illegal conduct by the plaintiff but provided no evidence to support these claims.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant's allegations were bald and self-serving.

The court also found the defendant's counterclaim was statute-barred.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $289,000, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff son sought to propound his father's last will, which left the bulk of the estate to him and only $1,000 to each of his five defendant sisters.

The sisters challenged the will on the grounds of lack of due execution, undue influence, and lack of testamentary capacity, pointing to suspicious circumstances including the son's involvement in arranging the will with an unknown lawyer.

The court found that while suspicious circumstances existed, the son successfully proved on a balance of probabilities that the father had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the will's contents.

The court ordered that a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a will may issue.