Robert E. Charney

The appellant appealed a case management judge's order permitting the foreign corporate respondent to redact irrelevant personal data from its documentary productions to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR and BDSG).

The Divisional Court upheld the redaction protocol, finding the motion judge had jurisdiction to craft a procedural compromise that balanced Ontario discovery obligations with international comity and foreign privacy laws.

However, the court granted the appeal solely to remove an unwarranted requirement that the respondent obtain leave before filing its affidavit of documents.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich Order against the Defendants, alleging fraud and misappropriation of approximately $700,000 in foreign currency reserves.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, irreparable harm, and a serious risk of asset dissipation by the Defendants.

Consequently, the Mareva injunction was granted to restrain the Defendants from dissipating assets, and a Norwich Order was issued compelling financial institutions to disclose information for asset tracing.

The Plaintiffs' alternative request for a Certificate of Pending Litigation was not addressed given the primary relief granted.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision reinstating five employees who were terminated for engaging in a sexually harassing WhatsApp group chat.

The arbitrator had found the investigation flawed because the targeted employee refused to file a formal complaint and the conduct occurred off-duty.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the arbitrator's reasoning was unreasonable as it failed to recognize the employer's statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to investigate incidents of workplace harassment regardless of whether a formal complaint is filed.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim due to their failure to attend examinations for discovery and comply with court-ordered timetables.

The defendants argued that examinations should be delayed until tax liability issues were resolved.

The court found that the defendants unilaterally refused to comply with a court order.

While not immediately striking the defence, the court ordered the defendant Daniel Silver to make himself available for examination within 30 days, failing which the plaintiff could renew the motion to strike.

The plaintiff was presumptively entitled to costs for the motion.

The plaintiff, Nino Kotorashvili, sued the defendant, Dr. Moo Hyung Lee, for medical negligence following a re-fracture of her clavicle after hardware removal surgery.

The court found Dr. Lee negligent for breaching the standard of care by prematurely removing the hardware without updated imaging and failing to obtain informed consent regarding the increased risk of re-fracture.

The re-fracture led to a malunion and a third reconstructive surgery.

The court awarded the plaintiff $35,000 in general damages for the re-fracture, prolonged recovery, and the need for the third surgery, plus pre-judgment interest at 2%.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3)(b) to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing that the plaintiff, an undischarged bankrupt, lacked the legal capacity to commence the action.

The plaintiff contended this was a misnomer curable under Rule 5.

The court found that the property forming the basis of the claim vested in the trustee in bankruptcy upon the plaintiff's assignment into bankruptcy, and the plaintiff's failure to disclose these substantial assets to the trustee meant the action, commenced while he was an undischarged bankrupt, was a nullity.

The court distinguished the case from situations where a misnomer could be cured, noting the trustee was a distinct party and had not sought to be substituted.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and the action was deemed a nullity, having been commenced outside the limitation period if re-filed.

The Plaintiff, a corporation, brought a motion under Rule 15.01(2) for leave to be represented by its sole shareholder, officer, and director, a non-lawyer.

The Defendant opposed, arguing a lack of demonstrated circumstances, particularly regarding financial inability to retain counsel.

The court granted leave, noting that while the proposed representative showed some procedural deficiencies, the corporation was a closely held "one-man company," making the issue a "self-inflicted wound." The order was granted without prejudice to the Defendant's right to seek review, withdrawal, or conditions if circumstances require.

The appellant father appealed a final parenting order, an order imputing income for child support, a dismissal of his request to change the child's name, and a substantial indemnity costs award of $161,606.69.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in determining the child's best interests, imputing income based on the father's failure to seek employment, or awarding costs based on findings of bad faith and domestic violence.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dubé J. dated October 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with corporate disclosure obligations.

The court considered the factors for extending time under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the delay was short, the court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit and appeared to be a collateral attack on a prior consent order.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perell J. dated December 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the self-represented moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Kaufman J. The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The court convened to hear an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the beginning of the hearing, the self-represented respondent requested an adjournment because he had not received the appellant's materials due to technology and mail delivery issues.

The appellant and intervenor did not oppose the request.

The court granted the adjournment and rescheduled the appeal.

This litigation concerns the Estate of Basile Sipidias.

The primary issue on this motion was whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement at a judicial mediation on January 17, 2023.

Evangeline Sipidias (a respondent and estate trustee) brought the motion to enforce the settlement, supported by Theodore Sipidias (the applicant).

Constantin Sipidias (another respondent and estate trustee) opposed, arguing no settlement was reached or that it was vitiated by misrepresentation regarding a joint bank account.

The court found that a settlement of essential terms was reached, as evidenced by the presiding judge's endorsements.

The alleged innocent misrepresentation regarding the joint bank account was deemed not material enough to rescind the settlement, given the small amount at stake relative to the total estate value and the long history of litigation.

The court also approved the settlement on behalf of George Sipidias, a beneficiary under legal disability, finding it to be in his best interest.

The plaintiff sought a case conference to establish a timetable for the defendant to serve her Affidavit of Documents and for examinations for discovery under Rule 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Despite the court's request for proposed timetables, the defendant's counsel advised their client intended to self-represent and failed to provide an alternative timetable.

Finding the defendant's actions to be a delay tactic, the court approved the plaintiff's proposed timetable, ordering the defendant to deliver her Affidavit of Documents by February 29, 2024, and for examinations for discovery to occur on one of the plaintiff's proposed dates in April or May 2024.

The applicant, Damaine Sitladeen, faced firearm and drug charges and brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 9 to exclude evidence.

He alleged unlawful arrest due to racial bias, an overbroad search incident to arrest, and an unconstitutional strip search.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the arrest was based on reasonable grounds (missing license plate), the vehicle search was incidental to arrest and reasonable (including for identification and after drug discovery), and the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, a licensed paralegal, brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that he is authorized to process and file immigration applications under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) maintained that By-Law 4 restricts paralegals to providing legal services only in connection with proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LSO's interpretation of By-Law 4 was correct, that the by-law does not conflict with the IRPA under the federal paramountcy doctrine, and that the restriction does not violate section 7 of the Charter.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoking his certificate of registration for sexual abuse of a patient and other professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Committee made palpable and overriding errors in its credibility findings, misapprehended evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's credibility determinations were entitled to significant deference, the Committee properly addressed inconsistencies in the evidence, and there was no demonstration of uneven scrutiny.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 26, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive to the responding party, payable within thirty days.