Peter Waldmann

The plaintiff successfully defended summary judgment motions brought by multiple defendants across several actions.

While costs were resolved with most defendants, the plaintiff sought costs against the defendants Helden and 131 Ontario for their involvement in the dismissed motions in the s. 38 BIA Action and the Copyright Action.

The court declined to award costs for the Copyright Action due to the defendants' limited involvement.

For the s. 38 BIA Action, the court found the defendants were passive participants who 'tagged along' with the primary moving parties.

The court apportioned 25% of the plaintiff's costs for that motion to these defendants, fixing the amount at $9,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

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.

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.

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 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.

The court-appointed Receiver for the properties of a local branch of The Polish Alliance of Canada moved for directions regarding its administration.

The plaintiff national association criticized the Receiver's neutrality, objecting to the presence of former branch executives on the property and disputing the membership list for an upcoming executive election.

The court approved the Receiver's conduct as prudent and neutral, rejected the plaintiff's attempt to unilaterally dictate branch membership, and directed the Receiver to hold an election among the 19 recognized remaining branch members.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking directions regarding implementation of a prior order determining that certain lands were held in trust for members of a branch of a national organization and that the defendants were not proper representatives after resigning from the parent organization.

The court found that the defendants had no authority to admit new members or call a meeting to elect a new executive.

To prevent confusion and protect the property pending proper reconstitution of the branch membership, the court appointed a receiver and manager to take control of the branch assets and supervise the reconstitution process.

The court also prohibited the defendants and associated individuals from holding a purported members’ meeting or conducting an election of the branch executive.

The plaintiff, a national not-for-profit umbrella organization, sought a declaration that it owned the real property of one of its local branches after the branch's leadership purported to secede.

The defendants, representing the seceding branch, argued the branch was autonomous and owned the property beneficially.

The court found that the corporate holding vehicle held legal title to the property in trust for the members of the branch from time to time.

The court also held that the branch's purported secession was invalid because it lacked the unanimous consent of its members, meaning the branch and its beneficial property interests remained within the parent organization.