R. Chapman

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2015 but took no steps for over five years while the principal of the plaintiff corporations faced criminal charges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the time to set the action down for trial, but later abandoned it and served a trial record.

The defendants brought cross-motions to proceed with the status hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they unilaterally held the action in abeyance without communicating with the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiffs failed to rebut the strong presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The action was dismissed for delay.

Following a successful confidentiality motion by the defendant, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

Both parties improperly filed additional unauthorized materials, for which the court denied leave.

The defendant sought $54,000 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $3,000 based on a prior Federal Court decision.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the defendant's materials excessive but acknowledging the complexity and importance of the motion.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $28,570.

The defendant brought a motion for a confidentiality and sealing order over documents and transcripts previously sealed in related Federal Court patent infringement proceedings.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the plaintiff failed to exercise its examination rights with reasonable diligence and the proposed evidence lacked material relevance.

While the court rejected the defendant's argument that the confidentiality issue was res judicata, it applied the Sherman Estate test and granted the sealing order, finding a strong public interest in protecting commercially sensitive information compelled through discovery.

The self-represented defendant requested a case conference to dispute a recently signed consent order dismissing the action, alleging he did not agree to waive the 30-day appeal period and accusing plaintiff's counsel of switching signature pages and the court of bias.

The court maintained that the signed consent was valid and the order had been entered.

The court directed the defendant to bring a formal motion on notice if he wished to set aside the order.

The proposed interveners, former counsel to the appellants, brought a motion for leave to intervene as added parties in an appeal from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The appellants alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and sought a term prohibiting the interveners from appealing any future order made on the appeal.

The court declined to impose the restriction, holding that interveners added as parties under Rule 13.01(1) should generally enjoy the same rights of appeal as any other party regarding issues that directly affect them.

The appellants appealed an order requiring the individual appellant to pay the respondent $22,253.23 pursuant to a consent judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider the factual matrix surrounding the settlement and misapplied section 30 of the OBCA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 30 was not contravened because the corporate defendant was not ordered to pay for the shares, and that the clear terms of the consent judgment did not require reference to the factual matrix.