Ren Bucholz

The appellants moved to expedite their appeal of a liability decision and to be relieved from filing a formal order, arguing that an early appeal could render a subsequent damages trial unnecessary.

The respondent opposed, contending that the appeal should not be scheduled until the damages trial was adjudicated, allowing for a single, comprehensive appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the principle of judicial economy and the ordinary practice of pursuing a single appeal encompassing both liability and damages.

The court found that fragmenting the appeal would likely delay the overall administration of justice and that any potential costs thrown away could be addressed in a costs award.

The respondents in the underlying application (BNY) brought a motion to adjourn a damages trial until after the disposition of their pending appeal on liability, to adduce further evidence, and to settle the form of judgment on liability.

The court had previously found BNY liable for breach of contract and ordered a viva voce trial on damages due to the complexity of the record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an adjournment would effectively impose a bifurcation not agreed to by the parties, contrary to Rule 6.1.01, and that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the damages trial to allow a single appeal on both liability and damages.

The court also declined to allow new evidence or settle the form of judgment at this stage.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The applicant claimed damages of over $889 million for breach of two Data Services Agreements, alleging the respondents improperly shared market pricing data within their corporate group.

The respondents argued the agreements allowed sharing across their 'line of business' or brand.

The court found the respondents breached the agreements, as the contracts, factual matrix, and parties' conduct indicated the data was restricted to the named entities.

Defences of waiver, estoppel, and limitation periods were dismissed.

However, the court found the paper record insufficient to assess damages and directed the issue of damages to a trial.

The parties were involved in a family law dispute over custody and access.

The applicant obtained an ex parte Anton Piller order and an order for supervised access based on evidence from a witness (C.B.W.) alleging the respondent solicited sexual services from minors.

The respondent brought a motion to question C.B.W. before filing responding evidence, citing concerns about self-incrimination in an ongoing police investigation.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to compel the respondent to file responding evidence and attend questioning.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding it would be unfair to allow questioning without reply evidence.

The court granted the applicant's motion, ordering the respondent to file responding affidavits and attend questioning, holding that the best interests of the child outweighed the respondent's self-incrimination concerns.

The plaintiffs brought a consolidated motion for leave to appeal five orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to a non-party student who reasonably participated in the motion.

The court also awarded elevated costs of $20,000 to the defendants, noting the plaintiffs filed voluminous materials of over 4,500 pages and improperly adduced fresh evidence through counsel's affidavits.

The plaintiffs filed affidavits containing confidential information about a minor child (Student Q) and her family, breaching a prior confidentiality order (Penny Order).

The defendants and Student Q's family successfully moved to have these affidavits removed/redacted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible and deserving of reprimand, rejecting their arguments of inadvertence and access to justice without evidence of impecuniosity.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to Student Q's family, and reduced costs to the defendants, totaling $41,633.44, payable by the plaintiffs.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of the case management judge.

The plaintiffs alleged actual and perceived bias, which the court found to be unsubstantiated.

The defendants sought substantial or partial indemnity costs for their opposition to the recusal motion.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs, finding their participation necessary and appropriate, and rejected the plaintiffs' arguments for no costs based on access to justice or financial hardship without evidentiary support.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as a reprimand for unsubstantiated bias allegations, emphasizing that costs awards should be reasonable and not punitive.

The moving parties sought to object to the responding parties including their factums from the court below in their motion record for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement clarifying that anything before the court below may form part of the record on a motion for leave to appeal, and there was nothing improper about including the factums.

The court declined to reconsider its decision on the motion for leave to appeal, noting that its decision did not turn on the responding parties' factums.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding a motion for disclosure of non-parties to whom the plaintiffs had disseminated unredacted litigation documents identifying minor defendants.

Despite the plaintiffs' failure to provide submissions and their stated intent to seek leave to appeal, the court proceeded to decide the outstanding issue.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached an interim publication ban and engaged in a strategy to release minor defendants' identities to the press.

To ameliorate the harm and ensure the efficacy of the publication ban, the court ordered the plaintiffs to disclose under oath the names and contact details of all recipients of the identifying documents.

The court heard urgent motions to seal the file and ban publication of minor parties' identities in a bullying lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, Mother Doe and Jane Doe, initially sought broad protection but then released unredacted pleadings to the press, identifying the minor defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible, rejecting their late-filed affidavits and expunging other materials.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court granted a publication ban protecting minors' names, school attendance dates, and family details, but allowed publication of ages, grade levels, and general details of alleged bullying and harm, as these were deemed not to identify the minors to the general public.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiffs due to their abusive litigation tactics and breaches of court orders.

The defendants and the non-party family of Student Q brought a motion to remove and/or redact certain affidavits and exhibits filed by the plaintiffs, citing breaches of a prior confidentiality order (the "Penny Order") protecting minor children's identities and confidential school records.

The court found that the plaintiffs' affidavits contained information identifying Student Q and other minor students, and that the confidential school records required enhanced protection.

The court granted the defendants' primary relief, striking the main affidavit and ordering its removal, imposing strict protocols for future filings, and directing the plaintiffs to retrieve and destroy copies of the affidavit disseminated to non-parties.

The plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit alleging bullying and sought a sealing order and publication bans without notice.

The defendants, including Havergal College and a minor defendant, also brought motions for similar protective relief.

The court held an urgent case conference, rejecting the plaintiffs' broad motion without notice but granting interim orders on consent to seal the court file and impose a publication ban on minor parties' identities and allegations.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' use of pseudonyms nunc pro tunc and appointed a litigation guardian for a minor defendant, both on consent.

The substantive motions for sealing and publication bans were scheduled for a later hearing.

The defendants brought an urgent motion to remove, redact, and seal affidavits and exhibits filed by the plaintiffs to protect the confidentiality of minor students.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for the case management judge's recusal, which was dismissed.

The plaintiffs then sought an adjournment of the defendants' motion due to late filings.

The court granted the adjournment on the condition that the entire court file be sealed temporarily, balancing the urgency of protecting minors' privacy interests against the open court principle, particularly given the operational constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs sought to dismiss the defendants' proposed motion as not urgent, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' arguments and found that the defendants' motion was urgent and not frivolous on its face.

The judge rejected the plaintiffs' request for dismissal, ruling that the motion met the requirements of the Notice to the Profession and was to be heard on its merits.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) for leave to file an additional affidavit following cross-examinations in an application concerning the alleged breach of market data licensing agreements.

The court applied the four-part test for leave, finding the objective factual evidence regarding corporate structure relevant and responsive to undertakings given during cross-examination.

However, the court struck out portions of the affidavit that contained impermissible subjective opinions on contract interpretation.

Leave was granted on terms, with costs awarded to the responding party on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs, Iris Technologies Inc. and ICE Wireless Inc., commenced an action against TELUS Communications Company for breach of contract and unlawful interference with economic relations.

TELUS brought a motion to temporarily stay the action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction or was not the appropriate forum, as the core dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

The court granted a temporary stay, finding that the factual and legal underpinnings of the civil action and the CRTC proceedings were the same, and the predicate misconduct concerned matters within the CRTC's specialized expertise.

Two consortiums of proposed Class Counsel brought competing motions for carriage of a proposed competition law class action against several German automobile manufacturers.

The underlying actions alleged that the defendants engaged in an anti-competitive conspiracy relating to automotive design, development, manufacturing, and marketing.

The court evaluated the competing litigation plans and case theories, noting that both were viable but that the Quenneville action presented a superior, more creative, and more developable case theory that appropriately included claims for deceptive marketing under the Competition Act.

The court granted carriage to the Quenneville action and stayed the competing Stibbe action.

The plaintiff succeeded in a defamation action arising from a sustained anonymous internet campaign accusing him, an accountant, of tax fraud, theft, and dishonesty.

The court found the principal individual defendant admitted authoring the campaign with malice, and held the second individual defendant and the corporate defendant jointly and severally liable based on concerted action and authorized corporate involvement.

The court awarded substantial general, aggravated, and punitive damages, emphasizing the uniquely pervasive and harmful nature of online defamation and the defendants’ misuse of the campaign as leverage in parallel business litigation.

Claims relating to assault and destruction of property were dismissed for lack of proof on a balance of probabilities, and no separate finding was made on conspiracy because no additional damages would follow.