Neil Paris

The applicants, a video game company and two of its employees, brought an urgent ex parte motion for a Norwich Pharmacal order against the respondent telecommunications provider.

The employees had been subjected to severe online harassment, doxxing, and racist threats by anonymous individuals using the respondent's services.

The court granted the order without notice to the respondent, finding that the respondent's policy of notifying customers about such requests could lead to further serious harm, including 'swatting'.

The court held that the test for a Norwich order was met, as the discovery was necessary to identify the wrongdoers for potential legal or police action.

Following a trial where the respondent was completely successful, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no bad faith or unreasonable conduct by the appellants.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $79,000, finding this to be a fair and reasonable amount.

The corporate defendant brought a motion to adjourn the trial date after its counsel was removed from the record shortly before trial.

The plaintiff and defendants by counterclaim strongly opposed the adjournment, arguing the defendant's principal had delayed in retaining new counsel.

The pre-trial judge determined she had jurisdiction to hear the adjournment request under Rule 50.07.

Despite finding the defendant's principal largely responsible for the delay, the court reluctantly granted the adjournment to allow the unrepresented corporation to retain counsel, noting this was the first fixed trial date and there was no evidence of prejudice.

The adjournment was granted on peremptory terms with costs thrown away awarded to the opposing parties.

The defendants in multiple related actions brought motions for summary judgment against the Pichelli plaintiffs, who were investors in a real estate development project.

The plaintiffs alleged that the developers (the Vuletics), a title holder (Kegalj), and the developers' lawyers (the Adairs) engaged in fraudulent and improper conduct.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the Adair defendants, finding that the lawyers owed no duty of care to the non-client investors.

The court also granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against Kegalj, finding no relationship or duty owed to the plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the Vuletics' motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of credibility and conflicting versions of the lot purchase agreements required a trial.