Phillip Wallner

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.

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.