Paul Le Vay

The Penfound Parties moved to lift a permanent stay of their claims and counterclaims, which had been imposed after they improperly accessed the Sprott Parties' privileged documents.

They sought the appointment of a litigation receiver and manager, arguing this constituted a material change in circumstances that would detoxify the litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed remedy was not a new circumstance but an argument that could have been raised during the original stay motion.

The court held that issue estoppel precluded relitigating the appropriate remedy, and regardless, a receiver could not effectively cure the prejudice caused by the moving parties' knowledge of privileged information.

The appellant, Interhealth Canada Limited, appealed a trial decision dismissing its claims against its former CEO, Michael O’Keefe, and Canadian Hospitals Network International Inc. (CHNI) for breach of fiduciary duty and diversion of corporate opportunities.

The appellant alleged O’Keefe diverted two maturing opportunities (HIH Opportunity and Cromwell Opportunity) to CHNI after his resignation.

The appeal also raised process-related issues, including a "trial by stopwatch" and the dismissal of a recall motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the opportunities did not fairly belong to the appellant and were fundamentally different from those the appellant pursued.

The court also found no prejudice from the trial management and upheld the recall motion dismissal.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order staying proceedings due to the appellants' unauthorized possession and review of the respondents' privileged documents.

The parties were involved in a failed joint venture to establish a Schedule 1 bank.

The appellants, particularly Scott Penfound, obtained and accessed voluminous privileged emails and legal strategy documents belonging to the respondents from a shared file server.

The motion judge found a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which the appellants failed to rebut by not providing evidence of the scope of their review.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that significant, ongoing prejudice existed that could not be cured by a lesser remedy, especially given the client's direct access to the information and lack of transparency.

The plaintiff, a former Minister of State, brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants, a lawyer and his law firm.

The defendants had refused to answer questions based on solicitor-client privilege and parliamentary privilege.

The court held that asserting privilege was not a collateral attack on a previous order refusing to strike the claim.

The court upheld the assertion of parliamentary privilege regarding testimony before a parliamentary committee.

However, the court found the assertion of solicitor-client privilege to be overbroad and ordered the defendants to answer certain questions that did not reveal privileged communications.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of prisoners and their families, alleging that Bell Canada and Ontario charged unconscionable rates for collect calls from provincial correctional facilities.

The plaintiffs sought certification, while the defendants brought cross-motions to stay the action, arguing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiffs' claims for an ultra vires tax and breach of the Telecommunications Act, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court permanently stayed the remaining claims, concluding that the pith and substance of the dispute concerned telecommunications rates, which fall squarely within the specialized jurisdiction and remedial authority of the CRTC.

The moving parties (Sprott Parties) sought to stay the responding parties' (Penfound Parties) claims as an abuse of process after discovering the responding parties had unauthorized access to and reviewed privileged emails and documents belonging to the moving parties.

The court found that the responding parties obtained access to confidential and privileged information and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

Concluding that allowing the action to proceed would be manifestly unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the court permanently stayed the responding parties' claims.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against TD, RBC, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank in a case alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the futures exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion, approving the settlement agreements and the plan of dissemination.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision declining to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 48.14 and instead imposing a timetable.

The underlying action involved a claim for indemnification from escrow funds following a share purchase agreement.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master applied the correct two-part test from Kara v. Arnold, properly considered the contextual factors including the defendants' own delay in filing a statement of defence, and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the plaintiff had an adequate explanation for delay and the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The appellants, Xundong Qin and Cenith Air Inc., sued the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and three of its employees for malicious prosecution after the OSC's allegations against them were dismissed.

The respondents moved to strike the claim, arguing issue estoppel applied due to a prior Superior Court order by Pattillo J. that continued a freeze order, finding a "serious issue to be tried." The motion judge granted the strike.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the "serious issue to be tried" standard for continuing a freeze order is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable cause" required for malicious prosecution.

Therefore, the issue of reasonable and probable cause was not "necessarily bound up" in Pattillo J.'s decision, and issue estoppel did not apply.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court.

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

The LSO defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, who is self-represented, sought a further indefinite adjournment of the motion, claiming that psychological disabilities prevented him from participating.

The court found that the medical notes provided by the plaintiff's treating physicians were insufficient to establish an inability to participate in the proceedings.

The court denied the indefinite adjournment, set a litigation schedule for the motion to strike, and allowed the plaintiff to bring a further motion for adjournment if supported by cogent expert medical evidence.

The court issued an addendum to its Reasons for Judgment, which previously found certain Option Agreement provisions unconscionable and granted relief from penalty and forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to the applicants.

This addendum sets the specific terms for that equitable relief, including timelines for construction commencement contingent on the respondent withdrawing an objection and the final disposition of any appeal.

The court also addressed costs, finding the applicants entirely successful and awarding them partial indemnity costs of $111,349.43, rejecting the respondents' arguments for divided success or reduced costs.

The applicants sought a declaration that repurchase and daily penalty provisions in an Option Agreement were unenforceable and relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents brought a cross-application to enforce the agreement.

The court found the provisions unconscionable due to gross disproportionality between the forfeiture/penalty and actual damages, coupled with unfair conduct by the respondents, unequal bargaining power, and inherently unreasonable terms.

The court also determined that the respondent Michael's agent implicitly waived Michael's right to rely on the construction deadline through his conduct.

Consequently, the applicants' request for relief from forfeiture was granted, and the respondents' cross-application to enforce the Option Agreement was dismissed.

The court imposed new, equitable terms for future construction and a revised repurchase price if subsequent defaults occur.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The appellants, a real estate agent and broker, appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay damages to the respondents (purchasers) for water and mould damage to a residential home, due to the agent's negligence.

The appeal primarily concerned the measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by applying the cost of repair measure, as the appellants' negligence did not cause the property defect itself, but rather caused the respondents to enter into a transaction they would have otherwise avoided.

In such cases, the proper measure of damages is the diminution in value of the property.

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings on mitigation of damages and the foreseeability of frost heave damage.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge for reassessment of damages based on diminution in value and for a redetermination of costs from the first trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

This is a costs endorsement following the release of reasons in an appeal.

The respondents advised that the court had misapprehended the appellants' oral costs submissions regarding quantum.

The parties were permitted to provide further written submissions on the costs issue.

The court affirmed its costs order for the appeal but altered the costs of the motion below, reducing the amounts payable by Bank of Montreal and Toronto Dominion Bank.