Rocco DiPucchio

The applicant, Brian Hamm, sought an order preventing the respondent, Gordon R. Baker, a lawyer, from disclosing the contents of a legal file to an intervenor in an ongoing litigation.

Hamm claimed that he and Baker were in a solicitor-client relationship, or a 'near client' relationship, and that Baker owed him a duty of confidentiality.

The court applied the Jeffers indicia to determine if a reasonable person would conclude a solicitor-client relationship existed.

The court found that Baker acted solely as corporate counsel for Northern Superior Industries Ltd. and for another investor, and that Hamm understood Baker was not representing his personal interests.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's decision to strike paragraph 25 of their statement of claim, which alleged that the respondent West Face distributed a defamatory report to unnamed third parties whose identities were known to West Face.

The appellants had already established a prima facie case of defamation by alleging publication to named persons at a specified time and place.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in striking the paragraph, finding that the appellants had demonstrated they were proceeding in good faith with a prima facie case and were not on a fishing expedition.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order striking paragraph 25.

The moving party, a former non-equity partner at the responding party law firm, brought a motion as an intervenor seeking an order under Rule 45.02 for the payment into court of a specific fund.

The fund in question was a contingency fee payable to the law firm by a client, which the moving party claimed he was entitled to a portion of based on an employment and fee-splitting agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party's claim was essentially for damages for breach of contract rather than a legal right to a specific fund, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the order.

VMedia sought a declaration that its new internet retransmitting service, which simultaneously retransmits over-the-air television signals, does not infringe Bell's copyrights in CTV programming.

VMedia argued it was entitled to a compulsory license under section 31 of the Copyright Act because it operated under its Broadcast Distribution Undertaking licenses rather than the CRTC's New Media Exemption Order.

The court found that VMedia's service is delivered and accessed over the internet, meaning it operates under the Exemption Order and is statutorily excluded from the compulsory licensing regime.

VMedia's application was dismissed, and Bell's counter-application for a declaration of copyright infringement and a permanent injunction was granted.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the main action.

West Face Capital Inc. was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $1,239,965 due to the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of soliciting and misusing confidential information, which impugned West Face's integrity and honesty.

Brandon Moyse was awarded partial indemnity costs of $339,500.18, despite also facing integrity-damaging allegations, because he had destroyed evidence at the outset of the litigation, albeit without intent to destroy relevant evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's allegations against West Face and Moyse to be serious and unsubstantiated, justifying higher costs for West Face, while Moyse's conduct warranted a reduction to partial indemnity.

The plaintiff, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., brought an action against Brandon Moyse and West Face Capital Inc. for alleged misuse of confidential information regarding WIND Mobile Inc. and spoliation of documents.

Catalyst claimed Moyse, a former analyst, provided confidential information to West Face, which West Face then used to acquire an interest in WIND.

The court assessed the evidence, including witness credibility, and found no direct evidence of information transfer.

The court also examined the elements of breach of confidence and spoliation.

The action was dismissed in its entirety, with the defendants entitled to costs.

This motion sought to correct the plaintiff's name to include a litigation guardian, Valerie Lummack by her litigation guardian Keith Lummack, due to Valerie's alleged mental incapacity.

The court reviewed conflicting expert evidence regarding Valerie's capacity to instruct counsel, noting discrepancies and the lack of accommodation for her communication deficits in the assessments.

The court emphasized the expert's duty to assist the court and directed the plaintiff's expert to conduct a further clinical interview with Valerie, specifically utilizing accommodations for her communication deficits, or provide reasons why such accommodations are unnecessary, within 30 days.

The defendants were granted leave to file a responding report.

Mid-Bowline Group Corp. applied under s. 182 of the OBCA for approval of a plan of arrangement to sell WIND Mobile to Shaw Communications for $1.6 billion.

The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. opposed the plan, asserting a constructive trust claim over shares held by West Face Capital Inc., alleging misuse of confidential information.

The court found the plan of arrangement fair and reasonable, as it allowed the sale to proceed while preserving Catalyst's right to pursue its claims against West Face for profits and tracing.

The court rejected Catalyst's demand for a full trial, citing the need for a timely resolution, and ordered an expedited four-day hearing for the constructive trust issue.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking an interlocutory voting injunction, an imaging order, and a contempt order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The unsuccessful moving party argued that most costs should be deferred to trial because the evidence overlapped with issues to be litigated on the merits.

The court rejected this submission, applying the principle that a successful defendant resisting interlocutory injunctive relief is generally entitled to costs payable forthwith.

After considering factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the high stakes of the motions, the absence of legal complexity, and certain conduct contributing to the contempt motion, the court fixed reduced partial indemnity costs for each successful defendant.

The plaintiff vendor commenced an action after the defendant purchaser failed to complete a commercial real estate transaction governed by an amended agreement of purchase and sale.

The purchaser argued that the contract was void due to an unmet third‑party condition and alleged failure to produce a long‑form lease.

The court found the amended agreement was a firm contract without conditions precedent and that the purchaser breached it by failing to pay the additional deposit and refusing to close in an attempt to renegotiate price.

Specific performance was denied because damages were an adequate remedy in the context of a commercial property transaction.

The court assessed damages at $300,000 based on the difference between the agreed purchase price and the market evidence available, and ordered release of the deposit to the vendor.

The moving party sought three forms of relief in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information: an interlocutory injunction preventing a shareholder from voting its 35% interest in a telecommunications company, an order authorizing forensic imaging and review of the defendants’ corporate servers and devices, and a finding of contempt for alleged breach of a prior consent order.

The court held that the requested voting injunction could not be granted because the moving party failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages under Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a favourable balance of convenience.

The requested imaging order was refused because there was no evidence that the responding party had failed to comply with its document production obligations or attempted to conceal or destroy electronic evidence.

The contempt motion also failed because the alleged acts—deleting personal browsing history and installing software capable of secure deletion—did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that relevant information had been intentionally destroyed in breach of the consent order.

Following a successful oppression action involving breach of fiduciary duty, enforceability of a property management agreement, and corporate share ownership, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs relying in part on a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The defendants argued success at trial was divided and that no costs or reduced costs should be awarded.

The court found the plaintiff achieved substantial success, particularly on the oppression and fiduciary breach issues, and had effectively beaten portions of the Rule 49 offer.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate for certain issues after the offer date and partial indemnity for others.

Considering proportionality and the absence of a competing bill of costs from the defendant, the court fixed total costs at $145,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff and defendants were friends who entered into a real estate joint venture through a corporation.

The plaintiff provided the financing, while the defendants were to manage the property.

After one defendant defaulted and was removed, the remaining defendant, acting as sole director, breached his fiduciary duties by hiding corporate income, falsifying records, and paying himself exorbitant property management fees against the plaintiff's objections.

The court found the defendant's conduct oppressive, determined the parties' respective shareholdings based on funds advanced, ordered the repayment of excess management fees, and imposed a shotgun buy/sell mechanism to effect a corporate divorce.