Patrick Cotter

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a decision of Conway J. dated April 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $10,000 to each of the responding parties, Sheldon Libfeld and Jay Libfeld.

The applicant brought an urgent application for judicial review regarding his daughter's denial of a place in a high school film program.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian, was a suspended lawyer and sought to represent his daughter without retaining counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on a preliminary issue, holding that under Rule 7.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a litigation guardian must be represented by a lawyer, and the court has no authority to relieve against this strict requirement.

The appellant, an Ontario-based domain name registrar, commenced an action for a declaration that it owned the domain name renner.com and had not registered it in bad faith, after the respondent initiated a WIPO dispute resolution proceeding.

The motion judge set aside service ex juris and stayed the action, finding that a domain name was not personal property located in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a domain name is intangible personal property and that the domain name in question was located in Ontario.

The Court found that the appellant's claim for declaratory relief fell within Rule 17.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection with Ontario that the respondent failed to rebut.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $2.25 million in quantum meruit damages for services provided in developing a manufacturers' outlet mall.

The respondent had provided extensive development and leasing services under the mistaken belief that the parties were in a joint venture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied a 'value received' approach rather than a 'value added' approach, properly relied on the respondent's expert valuation evidence, and reasonably assessed the fair market value of the unique services provided.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant construction management company was jointly liable as a co-venturer.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the appellants' counsel of choice on appeal.

The counsel had briefly met with and advised the respondent on the same dispute 11 years prior, before litigation commenced.

Although the counsel had no recollection of the meeting and argued there was no risk of misusing confidential information, the Court of Appeal granted the motion.

The court held that a lawyer owes a broader duty of loyalty to a former client, beyond just confidentiality, which precludes acting against that former client in the same matter to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.