Peter C. Wardle

The applicants brought preliminary objections to the admissibility of two pieces of evidence in an application proceeding concerning contingent fee recognition.

The respondent law firm and lawyers sought recognition of contingent fees claimed under a Partial Contingency Agreement dated June 17, 2011.

The court ruled on the admissibility of an expert report from a former Federal Court judge and a third affidavit from one of the respondent lawyers.

The court found that expert evidence on the complexity of the case, risks involved, and results achieved was not necessary, as these matters were within the experience and knowledge of the court and were adequately addressed through extensive evidence and comprehensive legal submissions.

The court also found the expert lacked the requisite qualifications to opine on the specific topics.

The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the third affidavit pending further consideration of its relevance.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate disposition of costs following the granting of an interlocutory proprietary injunction in a commercial dispute involving $16 million advanced by the applicants to the respondents.

The court considers whether costs should be awarded immediately or in the cause, referencing relevant case law and legal commentary.

Ultimately, the court orders that costs be in the cause, given the expedited hearing and the nature of the proceedings.

The court considered a motion for an interlocutory proprietary injunction and leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over three development properties.

The Applicants advanced $16 million to the Respondents for property purchases, claiming a common intention that the properties would stand as security.

The Respondents argued the advances were loans or investments without property interests.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding an equitable mortgage and unjust enrichment, granted injunctions over two properties, and a limited injunction over the third to allow refinancing.

The court also found that, if necessary, a CPL would be granted.

The applicants sought an assessment of a $510 million partial contingency fee paid to the lawyer respondents by the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund (RHTLF) and a determination of whether the $10 billion settlement proceeds were assets of the RHTLF Trust.

The court directed an assessment of the legal fees under the Solicitors Act, finding that the First Nations were liable to pay the bills and that special circumstances warranted assessment.

The court also confirmed that the settlement proceeds are assets of the Trust.

Dr. Rochagné Kilian appealed a Superior Court order compelling her to comply with an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding alleged false COVID-19 vaccine exemption certificates.

Dr. Kilian had refused to provide patient records, citing confidentiality and challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of the College's demands and the statutory provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's decision that the scope of a s. 87 application (to compel compliance) is limited to determining if there was a breach of statutory obligations and if the information requested was within investigatory powers.

The Court reiterated the principle of non-interference in ongoing administrative processes, holding that constitutional challenges and arguments regarding the lawfulness of the investigation's initiation must first be raised before the College's Discipline Committee before seeking judicial review.

This costs endorsement arises from a motion to add intervenors, which the court found was largely designed to delay an s. 87 application.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs.

The court ordered costs payable by the moving parties/proposed intervenors/appellants and Rochagné Killian on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the motion gave rise to significant unnecessary legal expenses and delay.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) applied for an order under s. 87 of the Health Professions Procedure Code to compel the respondent physician to produce patient records and cooperate with an investigation into her conduct regarding COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and public statements.

The respondent resisted, arguing privacy infringements and constitutional issues, and sought to expand the scope of the application beyond the limits set by prior Divisional Court rulings.

The court, bound by the Divisional Court's guidance, found the s. 87 application's scope narrow, rejecting constitutional challenges and arguments of overbreadth or abuse of process.

The court granted the order, finding the CPSO had established grounds for a statutory injunction and that the respondent had no legitimate reason to refuse cooperation.

A publication ban was also ordered, and the CPSO was awarded costs.

This motion concerned a request for a stay pending appeal of a lower court's dismissal of an application for leave to intervene.

The underlying matter involved the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario seeking an order to compel Dr. Kilian to provide patient files related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

The moving parties, anonymous patients of Dr. Kilian, argued their s. 8 Charter privacy rights would be violated without their intervention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried.

The court held that the expectation of privacy in medical records is lower in a regulatory context, as the primary purpose of such investigations is public protection, and existing confidentiality protections within the regulatory scheme are sufficient.

This is an appeal from a decision dismissing an action for abuse of process due to the appellant's failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement.

The appellant, Skymark Finance Corporation, entered into Minutes of Settlement with a key defendant, Lorraine Smith, which fundamentally altered the litigation dynamics by changing an adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

Skymark failed to disclose this agreement for eight months, only doing so after being threatened with an abuse of process motion.

The motion judge stayed the action, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, reiterating the strict obligation for immediate disclosure of such agreements and confirming that the absence of prejudice does not excuse non-compliance.

The appellants, former litigation counsel, appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion based on a limitations defence in a solicitor negligence claim.

The motion judge found the claim was not discoverable until the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal, or alternatively, that commencing an action earlier was not an appropriate means to remedy it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the claim was not time-barred, emphasizing that the respondents reasonably relied on their counsel's advice regarding the underlying litigation's legal errors, thus delaying discoverability of the negligence claim.

The appellant, Georgian Properties Corporation, appealed a summary judgment that dismissed its negligence action against respondent lawyers as statute-barred.

The negligence claim stemmed from the lawyers' work on condominium disclosure documents, mortgages, and a promissory note, which were later found insufficient or oppressive by a lower court.

The motion judge had found the claim discoverable by July 7, 2017, when a judge declined to strike a factum alleging inadequate disclosure.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in holding that loss occurred when the condominium corporation refused payments, clarifying that loss in solicitor negligence cases turns on the validity or enforceability of documents, not mere non-payment by third parties.

The Court concluded that Georgian Properties did not have sufficient material facts to infer liability against the lawyers until later, given the unusual procedural history and their reasonable expectation of success on the debt instruments.

The appeal was allowed, and the limitation defence dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, following an appeal where the lower court's judgment and costs order were set aside and the application remitted for rehearing.

The parties were unable to agree on the disposition of the original application costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the fairest approach was to leave the issue of the application costs to the trier of fact on the rehearing, whether before a Superior Court judge or in an arbitral process.

Appeal costs had previously been awarded to the appellants.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) sought an order compelling Dr. Rochagne Kilian to provide patient files related to COVID vaccine exemptions.

Anonymous patients (Proposed Intervenors) brought a motion to intervene as parties, arguing their privacy and Charter rights under sections 7 and 8, and the applicability of the O'Connor process.

Dr. Kilian supported the intervention, raising constitutional challenges to the CPSO's investigation powers.

The court reserved its decision on the intervention motion, finding that the "subject matter and scope of this Application" needed to be determined first, as there was significant dispute between the parties on this fundamental issue.

This is an appeal concerning the interpretation of a complex project agreement for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The application judge had found that a specific contractual provision (s. 62.1(c)) requiring a "Variation Enquiry" was triggered by an internal email from the Crown agencies to their own staff, which was never sent to the consortium.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding that this internal email constituted notification to the consortium.

The appeal was allowed, the original judgment set aside, and the application remitted to the Superior Court for a rehearing to consider other arguments, including good faith and the indivisibility of the Crown, which the application judge had not addressed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario brought applications to compel three physicians to cooperate with investigations into their practices, particularly concerning the issuance of COVID-19 vaccination exemptions and the dissemination of information.

The physicians refused to cooperate, asserting constitutional rights.

The court dismissed the respondents' adjournment requests and ordered them to comply with the investigations, including providing medical charts and patient information.

The court granted a publication ban on the identities of private physician sources and witnesses but denied a ban on the identities of the College's staff and the Medical Officer of Health, finding that social media comments directed at public officials, while vituperative, did not constitute actual threats of violence justifying such a ban.

The defendants, former solicitors for the plaintiff, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's negligence action on the basis that it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff alleged negligence in drafting condominium documents, leading to a substantial reduction in a prior award.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered or ought to have discovered its claim against the defendants no later than July 7, 2017, when a prior court endorsement specifically addressed the inadequacy of disclosure, which was attributable to the defendants' drafting.

As the action was commenced on November 19, 2019, it was barred by the Limitations Act.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a debentureholder, sought to bring a class action for oppression against certain shareholders, directors, and officers of Discovery Air Inc. The defendants argued the plaintiff lacked standing due to a 'no-action clause' in the trust indenture, which they claimed required trustee authority or satisfaction of specific preconditions.

The court found that the trust indenture, when read holistically, did not preclude the plaintiff's direct action.

Alternatively, the court determined that the plaintiff had met the preconditions, including the 25% debentureholder support and a reasonable offer of indemnity, despite the trustee's commercially unreasonable demands.

The plaintiff's motion was granted, allowing the oppression action to proceed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for judgment against the respondent for $7,451,662.65 under a settlement agreement.

The parties had contracted for construction of the western portion of the Eglinton Crosstown Tunnel.

The respondent was required to obtain third-party liability insurance, with the appellant as an additional insured.

The appellant was responsible for paying 100% of deductibles for third-party claims.

After substantial performance, the parties settled outstanding contract disputes with mutual releases that included a clause preserving rights and obligations regarding insurance policies.

The respondent withheld $6.4 million from the final settlement payment, claiming it was due for outstanding deductible claims.

The appellant argued the settlement released it from deductible obligations.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding the release did not release the appellant from its deductible obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding the release language clearly preserved all rights and obligations relating to insurance policies, including deductible payment obligations.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the defendants were substantially, but not entirely, successful, having secured the dismissal of two out of three claims.

The defendants sought two-thirds of their partial indemnity costs, calculated at $12,877.35.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be deferred to the trial judge or that no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found the defendants' claim for costs to be entirely reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay the specified amount within 30 days.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an action brought by CIT Financial Ltd. against several defendants, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale, including legal and expert fees.

The court considered the complexity, importance, and reasonable expectations of the parties.

While the court found the defendants were diligent in bringing their summary judgment motion after discoveries, it significantly reduced the claimed expert fees for Zeifmans (to one-third) and Duff & Phelps (to 50%).

This reduction was due to the defendants' experts' unreasonable refusal to cooperate with the plaintiff's expert, leading to unnecessary duplication of work in calculations.

Ultimately, CIT Financial Ltd. was ordered to pay the defendants legal fees totaling $1,706,147.92 and reduced disbursements (including expert fees) totaling $550,182.34.