N. Tourgis

The defendants, a law firm and one of its partners, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached an ad hoc fiduciary duty and aided and abetted a breach of an undertaking and a breach of the Business Corporations Act while representing a corporation in an employment matter.

The court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend, finding no facts to support a fiduciary relationship and holding that the claims for aiding and abetting were contrary to public policy as they would interfere with the lawyer-client relationship.

The parties brought competing motions regarding three disputed terms of their 2019 Minutes of Settlement: the removal of snowmobiles, the form of a share transfer agreement, and the payout of a life insurance policy.

The court ordered the applicant to remove the snowmobiles by a specific date, rejected the applicant's complex share transfer agreement in favour of a simpler one with basic representations and an indemnity, and refused to set aside the life insurance provision, finding no unilateral or mutual mistake that would justify rescission.

The applicant purchased two commercial condominium units from the respondent developer.

The purchase price was to be adjusted based on the 'actual gross area' of the units, calculated in accordance with the BOMA 1996 Standard.

The applicant argued the price should be based only on the net usable area, while the respondent argued it must include a gross-up for floor and building common areas.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract's explicit reference to the BOMA 1996 Standard objectively demonstrated the parties' intention to include the proportionate share of common areas in the calculation of the purchase price.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove Friedman Law Professional Corporation (FLPC) as lawyers of record for the defendants due to an alleged conflict of interest.

FLPC had previously represented the plaintiff Keith Alexander in a family law application involving complex family and business disputes.

The court found that the prior retainer was sufficiently related to the current defamation action, which involved allegations of abuse and extortion related to the same family disputes.

The court concluded that FLPC likely acquired relevant confidential information during the prior retainer and ordered FLPC removed as counsel of record to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The plaintiff sought leave to issue writs of seizure and sale and notices of garnishment against the defendant, 21 years after obtaining a default judgment.

The court considered whether the plaintiff provided an adequate explanation for the delay under Rules 60.07(2) and 60.08(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the plaintiff failed to file writs within the first six years and provided inadequate, hearsay evidence to explain the subsequent 15-year gap, the court inferred a waiver of rights.

The motion for leave was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' personal action for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression, arguing it was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel due to a prior ruling denying leave to commence a derivative action.

The court dismissed the motion to stay under the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the prior ruling did not determine personal rights or make binding findings of fact.

However, the court granted a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act pending the plaintiffs' appeal of the derivative action ruling, to prevent duplication of resources and inconsistent results.