COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-2310-00 DATE: 2016-06-29
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: VIRENDER SHARMA and SAHARA LAWYER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION v. SUBASH CHANDER SHARMA, AMANDEEP KAPILA and AASARA LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BEFORE: Emery J
COUNSEL: Gregory Sidlofsky, for the Plaintiffs Ajit Saroha, for the defendant Subash Chander Sharma Emil Gordon, for the defendant Amandeep Kapila Darrell Paul, for Lata Menon
HEARD: June 22, 2016 by telephone
Endorsement
[1] On June 14, 2016, counsel was advised in a letter from Regional Senior Justice Daley that he had appointed me as the judge under Rule 37.15 to hear all motions in this action and the related applications. The proceedings therefore covered by case management of this nature are as follows:
- this action commenced by Virender Sharma and Sahara Lawyer Professional Corporation against Subash Chander Sharma, Amandeep Kapila and Aasara Lawyers Professional Corporation in Toronto, now transferred to Brampton having Court File No. CV-16-2310;
- the application commenced by Amandeep Kapila against Virender Sharma and Subash Sharma in Brampton Court File No. CV-16-1908;
- the application commenced by Subash Chander Sharma against Virender Sharma and Amandeep Kapila in Brampton Court File No. CV-16-2338;
- the application commenced by Lata Menon against Sahara Lawyer Professional Corporation, et al, in Brampton Court File No. CV-15-5890
- the application commenced by Sahara Lawyer Professional Corporation against Lata Menon, in Brampton Court File No. CV-16-0347.
[2] I convened a case management conference with counsel by telephone on June 22, 2016 to identify common issues in each proceeding, and to coordinate the hearing of any application or motion for which a hearing date had already been obtained or that any party proposed to bring, having regard to my availability and the availability of counsel. The following are the orders agreed upon or made during that conference call.
Background
[3] The action and four applications arise from the break-up of a law firm formed by three lawyers: Virender Sharma, Subash Sharma and Amandeep Kapila. The lawyers incorporated Sahara Lawyer Professional Corporation (“SLPC”) to carry on the practice of law together. The incorporated firm would refer litigation files to Lata Menon as counsel. The litigation was commenced to unravel all of the financial and other arrangements after the break-up of SLPC.
[4] On February 6, 2016, Justice LeMay adjourned the two applications as between Ms. Menon and SLPC to September 21, 2016 for a two-hour hearing. Justice LeMay also set a timetable for the production of documents and the examination of parties.
[5] After Justice LeMay made his order, Amandeep Kapila and Subash Sharma took the position that Virender Sharma did not have authority to act on behalf of SLPC. They maintain the three of them are equal shareholders. In April 2016, Mr. Kapila issued an application for a declaration that he, Subash Sharma and Virender Sharma each owned 100 shares in SLPC.
[6] In response, Virender Sharma brought a motion within this action to seek an interlocutory injunction to prevent Mr. Kapila and Subash Sharma from interfering with the operation and management of SLPC. The application commenced by Mr. Kapila and the motion for injunctive relief were both made returnable on May 27, 2016.
[7] On May 27, 2016, Justice Andre ordered that Mr. Kapila’s application and Virender Sharma’s motion for an interlocutory injunction be heard together on February 8, 2017 as long motions. Justice Andre also ordered that neither Mr. Kapila nor Mr. Subash Sharma take any steps to disrupt or interrupt the operations and management of SLPC pending a court order. Justice Andre further ordered, among other things, that Virender Sharma take no further action in the ongoing litigation between himself, SLPC, Subash Sharma and Amandeep Kapila pending any order of the court on Virender Sharma’s motion.
[8] Mr. Sidlofsky has brought a motion on behalf of Virender Sharma in one or both of the applications in which Ms. Menon is a party to compel her attendance at a cross-examination. This cross-examination is relevant to the applications to be heard on September 21, 2016. This motion is returnable on June 30, 2016. On consent, an order shall go:
a) Vacating June 30, 2016 as the hearing date for any motion in either application to compel Ms. Menon to attend a cross-examination under Court File Nos. CV-15-5890 and CV-16-0347; b) Converting any such motion into a motion made in writing, on the following terms: i) Mr. Sidlofsky shall serve on all other counsel an amended Notice of Motion reflecting that the motion is to be made in writing, as well as a duly sworn copy of the supporting affidavit and exhibit pages duly completed by the lawyer or the commissioner for the taking of affidavits before whom the affidavit was sworn, after which he may insert the amended Notice of Motion and completed affidavit materials into the Motion Record; ii) Mr. Sidlofsky may accept service on the back of the motion record on behalf of all other counsel and to file that motion record with the court office in Brampton without having to serve and file an Amended Motion Record; iii) Mr. Paul shall serve and file any responding affidavit sworn by Ms. Menon by June 30, 2016; iv) Mr. Gordon shall serve and file any responding affidavit on behalf of Amandeep Kapila by June 30, 2016; v) Mr. Saroha shall serve and file any responding affidavit on behalf of Subash Chander Sharma by June 30, 2016; vi) Mr. Sidlofsky shall serve and file any reply affidavit by July 11, 2016; vii) Mr. Sidlofsky shall serve and file written submissions consisting of no more than three, double-spaced typewritten pages on the motion by July 15, 2016; viii) Counsel for each of the responding parties shall serve and file written submissions consisting of no more than three double-spaced typewritten pages by July 29, 2016; ix) The requirement of factums on this motion is dispensed with.
[9] The disposition of the motion to compel Ms. Menon’s attendance at a cross-examination in writing is intended to provide time for any such cross-examination, if ordered, and to preserve the hearing date of the two applications in which Lata Menon is a party on September 21, 2016.
[10] The hearing date for both the motion for injunctive relief in this action and Mr. Kapila’s application for a determination of shareholders and their interests in SLPC currently scheduled to be heard together on February 8, 2017 is hereby vacated. Instead, that hearing date shall be rescheduled for a date that is mutually convenient to counsel during the week of January 16, 2017 or the week of January 23, 2017. The specific hearing date in either week shall be fixed in consultation with my judicial assistant, Mr. Christopher Charles.
[11] Mr. Subash Sharma and Mr. Kapila take the position that Justice Andre’s endorsement does not permit cross-examination or other steps leading up to the matters currently scheduled for 2017. Virender Sharma disagrees. In order to determine the nature and effect of Justice Andre’s endorsement, the parties have a choice of either seeking an appointment with Justice Andre before August 31, 2016 for an order to clarify the orders he made in the endorsement issued on May 27, 2016, or to bring a motion under Rule 59.06 before me to set aside or vary Justice Andre’s order with respect to that issue. The first to secure an appointment with Justice Andre or to bring a motion shall determine the course that will be followed.
[12] Subsequent to the case management call, I received requests to schedule further hearing dates for the following motions:
- From Mr. Sidlofsky, to seek an order to compel the attendance of Mr. Subash Sharma and Mr. Amandeep Kapila at cross-examinations on the pending motion for injunctive relief and the application to determine shareholder interests to be heard together in early 2017;
- From Mr. Gordon, for a motion to remove Mr. Sidlofsky as counsel of record for SPLC in any of the proceedings.
[13] Counsel are invited to contact my judicial assistant, Mr. Christopher Charles, to schedule one hour dates for each of these motions at 9 o’clock on any morning when I am already sitting in Brampton. The motions will be heard on different dates as time will not permit the hearing of both motions at the same time. I shall hear the motion to remove Mr. Sidlofsky first, and the motion to compel attendance at cross-examinations on a subsequent date. Factums shall be required on each of those motions.
[14] As indicated to counsel on the telephone call, costs will be an issue on each and every motion.
[15] I further confirm counsel were advised that, except where timing and procedure is modified by any previous order or by any order I make or that may be agreed upon in writing by the parties, the Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply in all respects.