Phillip Johann Julien Wallner

The plaintiffs, Ebury Partners Canada Ltd. and Ebury Partners Finance Ltd., moved for summary judgment against the defendants for debts allegedly owed under a Transaction Finance Agreement and a Foreign Exchange Services Agreement.

The plaintiffs sought $142,251.07 plus interest under the FX Agreement and $84,496.40 plus interest under the TF Agreement, with the latter also sought against the defendant William Friedman as a personal guarantor.

The defendants opposed the motion, alleging that Ebury had made misrepresentations regarding the provision of advice and risk management tools.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate and granted judgment for the plaintiffs in full.

The decision addresses a motion to amend the Statement of Claim in a civil action brought by Gurupdesh Pandher against the University of Windsor and several individuals.

The court considers whether the plaintiff may add Human Rights Code claims from prior HRTO applications, the addition of new defendants, the sufficiency of defamation pleadings, the scope of misfeasance in public office, the introduction of new human rights grounds, the effect of the collective agreement and labour arbitration, the use of documents subject to the deemed or implied undertaking rule, and the pleading of matters subject to settlement privilege.

The court grants some amendments, strikes others, and provides detailed directions for further pleadings.

The court addresses the issue of "costs thrown away" following the plaintiff's successful motion to amend his Statement of Claim to add Human Rights Code claims.

The court reviews the appropriate scale for such costs, the timing of the assessment, and the quantum to be awarded.

Ultimately, the court fixes the amount of costs thrown away at $52,549, payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and provides detailed reasons for the calculation and allocation of these costs.

This decision concerns a motion for leave to appeal an order approving the sale of a property in receivership.

The moving parties, owners of the property, sought an adjournment to arrange financing to redeem the first mortgage and continue their affordable housing project.

The motion judge denied the adjournment and approved the sale.

On motion for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance, had little merit, and that granting leave would unduly hinder the receivership process.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The decision addresses motions by the plaintiff to amend his Statement of Claim to add explicit human rights claims previously advanced before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), and to add two new defendants.

The court grants leave to amend to add the Code-related claims, finding that the amendments do not introduce new causes of action but rather new remedies arising from the same factual matrix.

The court denies leave to add new defendants, as claims against them are statute-barred.

The court also addresses costs thrown away on an abandoned injunction motion, awarding partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

During a trial regarding a commercial lease dispute, the plaintiff sought to introduce a 'With Prejudice' settlement offer it had previously served on the defendant.

The defendant objected to its admission on the basis of settlement privilege.

The court applied the three-part test for settlement privilege and held that the label 'With Prejudice' does not change the character of a communication made in furtherance of settlement.

The court ruled the offer was privileged and inadmissible under Rule 49.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) sought a confidentiality order to prevent the disclosure of certain commercial information in an upcoming summary trial regarding a terminated commercial lease.

The moving party relied on a confidentiality provision in the lease agreement.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test and interpreted the lease's confidentiality clause, finding that the clause explicitly exempted litigation between the parties.

Without an applicable confidentiality clause, the moving party failed to establish an important commercial interest that outweighed the public interest in open courts.

The motion was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously released its decision and invited written submissions on costs.

Considering the appellant's partial success on one issue and the dismissal of the balance of the appeal, the court fixed costs of the appeal at $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the appellant to the respondent.

The Landlord appealed a trial judgment concerning a commercial lease, challenging conclusions regarding rent for a shed area and mezzanine, and the tenant's option to extend the lease, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal only to correct the limitation period for arrears of "non-lease-based rent" for the shed area from two to six years, finding it fell under the Real Property Limitations Act.

All other grounds of appeal, including the mezzanine rent, the validity of the lease extension, and the costs award, were dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former law student, conceived the idea of using a class proceeding to resolve the issue of unpaid royalties to unlocatable musicians.

She brought the idea to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, which formed a consortium with class counsel.

The plaintiff and CIPPIC entered into an agreement guaranteeing her 5% of the counsel fees awarded.

The plaintiff later sued the university for $3.5 million, alleging breach of copyright, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, arguing she was entitled to a larger share.

The court dismissed the tort and equitable claims, finding no breach of copyright or fiduciary duty, and upheld the written agreement as binding and reasonable.

The plaintiff was awarded $328,396.82, representing her agreed 5% share of the counsel fees.

The defendant homeowners brought a motion to vacate a construction lien registered by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien had expired before perfection because the contract was abandoned earlier than claimed.

The homeowners also sought an order for security for costs.

The court found the contractor did not abandon the project until the homeowners refused access, meaning the lien was preserved and perfected in time.

The court also dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding the corporate plaintiff was impecunious and its claim was not obviously devoid of merit.