Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-607920

DATE: 2020-12-21

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: STEPHAN INTRALIGI and INTRALIGI LAW FIRM, Applicants

AND:

SINGH BARRISTERS, Respondent

BEFORE: Paul B. Schabas J.

COUNSEL: Kris Borg-Oliver and Alysha Shore for the Applicants Vic Singh and Priashna Singh for the Respondent

HEARD: December 21, 2020 in writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This matter was forwarded to me for determination in writing on December 8, 2020. Incorrectly, it had been treated as a consent or unopposed motion. However, at that time I was only provided with the applicant’s factum and a supplementary application record. Through my assistant, I requested counsel send me the application record and observed that on reviewing the initial material, I had noticed reference to an affidavit from the respondent which I also had not seen.

[2] Counsel then sent me the Application Record, the affidavit of the respondent, and a factum of the respondent. It became quite clear to me then that this was not a consent or unopposed motion. Far from it.

[3] The application arises out of an alleged breach of contract relating to referral fees between two law firms. It seeks damages and an accounting and status report. On May 22, 2019, I signed an order, on consent, directing an accounting and status report. A status report was provided by the respondent to the applicants on June 6, 2019.

[4] The applicants now seek damages of over $1,387,802.98 or, in the alternative, an award of $236,207.37 now based on the status report, with the “issue of damages attributable to the improperly closed files reserved for a ‘mini-trial’.”

[5] The matter was originally scheduled to be heard in March 2020 but was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In September, this matter was directed, apparently on consent, to be heard in writing. Having now reviewed the evidence since filed by both parties, and their factums, a disposition of this matter based on the written record is not appropriate.

[6] All of the relief sought is opposed by the respondent. There are material facts in dispute and legal issues raised which require a hearing, perhaps, a trial. Even if I were to accept that the applicants are entitled, now, to an award of $236,207.37, which is disputed, that would still leave the balance of the claim being sent to a “mini-trial”, at which time legal arguments may be raised that may affect all of the damages sought by the applicants. In this respect, the caution against awarding partial summary judgment is apt.

[7] Accordingly, this matter should return to Civil Practice Court for the scheduling of a hearing which may include a mini-trial.

Paul B. Schabas J.

Date: December 21, 2020