Peter Istvan Waldmann

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

The plaintiff commenced four separate actions arising out of the bankruptcy and subsequent death of a lawyer.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the actions, primarily arguing they were barred by the applicable limitation periods.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the Bankruptcy Trustee Action and the Client Assigned Claims Action (with one minor exception), finding they were commenced after the expiry of the two-year limitation period and there was no genuine issue for trial regarding discoverability.

However, the court denied summary judgment for the s. 38 BIA Action and the Copyright Action, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the injuries and whether the copyrighted materials were used during the relevant period.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The respondent law firm brought a motion to strike a supplementary motion record and subsequent affidavits delivered by the applicants in an application to assess the firm's accounts.

The applicants delivered the 1,229-page supplementary record over six years after the application was commenced, without leave, and after the applicants had already been cross-examined on their original affidavits.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the late delivery constituted improper case-splitting and an attempt to 'shore up' evidence post-cross-examination.

The court also denied the applicants' request to cross-examine a witness, finding they had forfeited the right by failing to exercise reasonable diligence.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful motion brought by Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. to strike allegations of vicarious liability for sexual harassment from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

Skyservice sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for partial indemnity.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, affirming that such an elevated scale is reserved for reprehensible conduct.

The court awarded Skyservice costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,562.88, finding the quantum reasonable based on the time spent and rates, and noting its similarity to the plaintiff's own partial indemnity costs outline.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim sought an adjournment of the trial to bring a motion to consolidate the action with the plaintiff's separate defamation lawsuit against a newspaper.

The defendants argued the plaintiff was claiming psychological damages in both actions.

The court dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding the two pieces of litigation to be separate and distinct, and noting the defendants could cross-examine the plaintiff and experts on the overlapping issues without consolidating the trials.

A police services board and a detective appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for false arrest, negligent investigation, and malicious prosecution, with significant damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on lack of reasonable and probable grounds and malice, and the cross-appeal, affirming the costs award.

The defendant Skyservice Business Aviation Inc. brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike allegations of vicarious liability for sexual harassment from the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, arguing that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that sexual harassment is not an independent tort in Ontario and that section 46.3 of the Human Rights Code expressly excludes vicarious liability for sexual harassment against an employer.

The motion to strike was granted, with leave to amend denied for this specific tort, but allowing for amendments related to other Code infringements under section 46.1.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant client sought to schedule a hearing before a judge to assess accounts rendered by his former lawyer.

The contingency fee agreement had previously been declared unenforceable by another judge, who ordered a reference for assessment.

The court held that because the contingency fee agreement was unenforceable, the assessment must proceed in the normal manner before an assessment officer, not a judge.

The application to schedule a hearing before a judge was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim to restore his former family law lawyer as a defendant in an action for professional negligence.

The action against the lawyer had previously been dismissed on consent without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to bring a motion to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The plaintiff brought the motion five years later.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had discovered his claim prior to commencing the original action in 2014, the two-year limitation period had expired, and the consent order did not constitute an agreement to toll or waive the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant appealed a Master's decision setting aside a Registrar's order that dismissed the plaintiff's defamation action for delay.

The defendant argued the Master erred by not upholding the dismissal after finding the plaintiff deliberately delayed the action, and by reversing the burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct contextual approach to the Reid factors and reasonably concluded that the interests of justice favoured deciding the case on its merits, given the lack of significant prejudice to the defendant.

This is an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the assessment of a law firm's fees under an unenforceable contingency fee agreement (CFA).

The law firm, Singer Kwinter (SK), appealed the application judge's reduction of their fees and a finding of double-billed disbursements.

Their former client, David Lima, cross-appealed the quantum meruit assessment and sought a greater reduction.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that an unenforceable CFA leads to a quantum meruit assessment, not forfeiture of fees, and reversed the double-billing finding due to procedural unfairness.

On costs, the court balanced SK's responsibility for the assessment due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act against Lima's responsibility for the hearing's length due to rejecting reasonable settlement offers.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding spousal support, child support, and net family property, the respondent sought costs of $13,585 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant suggested $10,000, citing modest success and unproven economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive, noting the appeal was heard in writing, and ordered the costs enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding spousal support, child support, net family property, and costs.

He argued the trial judge erred in imputing income to him and under-attributing income to the respondent.

The respondent conceded minor calculation errors regarding her 2017 income and the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal corrected the conceded errors but otherwise dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments, income imputations, and costs award were entitled to deference and revealed no errors in principle.

A case management teleconference was held to set a timetable for a motion to quash a notice of examination served by the responding party on the moving party.

The court established deadlines for serving motion materials, factums, and completing cross-examinations.

Directions were also provided for the filing of electronic materials and the conduct of the virtual hearing via Zoom.

A case management conference was held to schedule two motions for leave to appeal a decision appointing carriage counsel in a class action.

The court established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, directed the creation of a joint record and electronic drop box, and ordered that the motions proceed in writing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The moving party, claiming to be a creditor, brought a motion to annul a bankruptcy proposal that had been accepted by creditors and approved by the court.

The moving party alleged injustice and fraud regarding the voting of contingent claims and the transfer of business opportunities to a related company.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it to be an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the court's approval order, as the moving party was aware of the material facts at the time of the creditors' meeting but failed to object or appeal.