None appearing

A law firm applied for approval of a contingency fee agreement, approval of accounts following termination of the retainer, and authorization to deduct fees and disbursements from funds held in trust.

The court also heard a motion for the firm to be removed as counsel of record after a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

While permitting the firm to withdraw from the record, the court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement or automatically enforce hourly rates triggered by termination.

Instead, the court held that the firm was entitled only to reasonable compensation for legal services and directed that the accounts be assessed in the ordinary manner under the Solicitors Act.

Fees relating to escrow agent services were found not to constitute legal services and therefore were not subject to assessment under that regime.

The applicant, Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 282, sought a Norwich order compelling Yahoo!

Inc. and Yahoo!

Canada Co. to disclose the identity of an individual who sent allegedly defamatory emails to condominium owners and occupants under the alias "Ian Fleming." The court granted the Norwich order, finding that the applicant established a bona fide claim for defamation, Yahoo! was the only practicable source of the necessary information, the costs of compliance were nominal and indemnified, and the interests of justice favored disclosure.

The decision emphasized that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for individuals using the internet to publish defamatory statements.

Following the striking of the husband’s pleadings for failure to comply with financial disclosure orders, the matter proceeded as an uncontested family law trial on financial issues.

The court addressed retroactive child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

Applying the principles governing retroactive child support, including those set out in DBS v SRG, the court found that some delay by the wife in seeking support was unreasonable but that the husband’s conduct and failure to support the children were significant factors.

Retroactive child support was ordered from September 1, 2010 and retroactive spousal support from May 1, 2011.

The husband’s interest in the matrimonial home was vested in the wife to satisfy equalization and support arrears, and ongoing support obligations were established.

Victims of terrorism sought enforcement in Ontario of U.S. judgments against a foreign state and its agencies following recognition of those judgments under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

The court considered the interaction between the JVTA, the State Immunity Act, and Ontario enforcement procedures.

It held that non‑diplomatic bank accounts and real property beneficially owned by the foreign state in Canada were exigible assets available to satisfy the recognized judgment.

The court ordered financial institutions to pay funds to the sheriff for distribution under provincial execution legislation and directed enforcement against two properties found to be beneficially owned by the foreign state.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion seeking confirmation that certain bank accounts identified by the federal government as assets of a foreign state fell within the scope of an existing Mareva injunction issued in an action to recognize and enforce a U.S. terrorism judgment.

Relying on information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs pursuant to s. 12.1 of the State Immunity Act, the plaintiffs argued that the accounts constituted assets of the defendants in Canada and should therefore be frozen under the existing order.

The court held that the plaintiffs had established a strong arguable case that the identified accounts were subject to the Mareva order and confirmed that the injunction applied to those accounts.

However, broader disclosure of full banking records was limited to situations where the accounts were held directly by entities already named in the injunction, with further directions reserved for later proceedings.

The plaintiff brought an action in slander against the defendant for making defamatory allegations to the plaintiff’s employer that implied criminal conduct and professional misconduct.

The defendant failed to file a defence and was noted in default, and the matter proceeded to trial solely for the assessment of damages.

The court held that the defamatory statements alleged criminal activity and were communicated directly to the plaintiff’s employer, affecting professional reputation.

Applying established defamation damages factors and noting the defendant’s malice and refusal to retract the statements, the court awarded general damages.

Judgment was granted for $10,000 in damages and $750 in costs.

A youth care worker brought a civil action against her employer and supervisor after being violently assaulted and sexually assaulted by a resident at a group home.

The defendants’ statement of defence was struck and they were noted in default, leaving a trial solely on damages.

The court permitted an amendment to increase the claimed damages because the defendants had notice and suffered no prejudice.

Applying principles governing non‑pecuniary damages for sexual assault and workplace negligence, the court awarded substantial general damages including aggravated damages, together with damages for past and future income loss supported by expert evidence.

The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the total damages award.

The applicant brought a corporate law application under multiple provisions of the Business Corporations Act, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a supplemental endorsement, the court addressed the timing of service of the Notice of Application following an earlier endorsement.

The court amended paragraph 2 of the prior endorsement and extended the time for service of the Notice of Application by 90 days from September 1, 2012.

The order was made in circumstances where the respondents did not appear.