CITATION: Wenbin (Vincent) Ke v. Sam Cooper et al., 2026 ONSC 3454
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: WENBIN (VINCENT) KE, Plaintiff
AND:
SAM COOPER; ANDREW RUSSELL; COLIN D'MELLO; SONIA VERMA; GLOBAL NEWS (CORUS ENTERTAINMENT), Defendants
BEFORE: Schabas J.
COUNSEL: Jonathan C Lisus and Danielle Glatt, for the Plaintiff
Ryder Gilliland, Brendan J Hughes and Michael Robson, Defendants
HEARD: May 5 and June 9, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1Case conferences in this matter were held on May 5, 2026 and June 9, 2026.
2Further to directions given in my endorsement following the case conference held on December 12, 2025, the defendants have made further production to the plaintiff.
3The additional disclosure is extensive. The plaintiff raises concerns about the scope of the previous lack of disclosure. Counsel takes the position that the newly disclosed documents raise a number of new issues and that this has significantly changed the landscape of the case. As a result, the plaintiff does not wish to proceed further with the summary judgment motion, but to proceed to a trial.
4Although the plaintiff initially took the position that his costs “thrown away” should be determined at this time, counsel agreed that it may be more appropriate to have costs of the summary judgment motion determined by the trial judge who would have the benefit of hearing all the evidence and be in the best position to assess the issue of how the new disclosure changed the landscape and how that may bear on the costs of the motion.
5The plaintiff also now seeks to amend his statement of claim, and he wishes to file a jury notice. Counsel asked that I approve this at the case conference. Further, the plaintiff wishes to examine the defendants on the additional productions.
6The defendants initially took the position that the summary judgment motion should proceed following cross-examinations on the newly produced documents. However, the defendants have repeatedly taken issue with the appropriateness of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The defendants recognize that the plaintiff can abandon his summary judgment motion, but that if the matter is to instead proceed to trial, the costs related to the summary judgment motion should be left to the trial judge.
7The defendants object to the plaintiff amending his statement of claim. They submit it is not necessary and is a tactical decision in order to facilitate the filing of a jury notice. In any event, the defendants submit, these issues must be brought by way of a formal motion.
8Following the conclusion of the May 5, 2026 case conference, but before I released my endorsement, counsel for the defendants sought a further opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s position, noting that the plaintiff had only provided a case conference brief less than 24 hours before the case conference, and that the plaintiff’s position had “shifted” during the case conference. Counsel for the plaintiff objected to further submissions.
9After consideration of the correspondence from both sides, I sent the following email to counsel on May 8, 2026:
I have received your correspondence sent following the case conference held on May 5, 2026.
Prior to receiving that correspondence, I had prepared an endorsement briefly summarizing the parties’ positions and stating what I believe was the consensus reached at the end of the conference, as follows:
(a) The summary judgment motion shall not proceed, and subject to any further submissions to me, the costs of the summary judgment motion shall be left to the trial judge;
(b) The plaintiff shall conduct further examinations of the defendants to address the newly produced documents;
(c) The plaintiff’s request to amend the statement of claim and file a jury notice shall be determined on a motion following the conclusion of the further examinations; and
(d) I remain seized of the matter.
If the defendants wish to revisit any of this with me, I will schedule a further case conference. However, the parties should provide their position, in no more than two pages, five days in advance of any such case conference.
Please advise if you wish to meet again by Wednesday May 13, 2026, at 5PM, failing which I will release my endorsement with the directions set out above.
10Defendants’ counsel requested another case conference, which was held on June 9, 2026. The parties provided helpful briefs in advance.
11At the June 9 case conference, the defendants took the position that I should be seized as the trial judge, largely on the grounds that I heard the summary judgment motion and will be best situated to decide costs of the summary judgment motion after also hearing the trial. The defendants take the position that if I am not to be the trial judge, then I should determine the costs of the now discontinued summary judgment motion as I heard the motion. The defendants rely on statements by the Supreme Court in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, including at para. 78 that “[w]here a motion judge dismisses a motion for summary judgment, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, she should also seize herself of the matter as the trial judge.”
12Counsel for the plaintiff submits that Hryniak has no application because I have not dismissed the application after a review of a complete record, and that I should not seize the matter as the trial judge. However, the plaintiff has no objection to me continuing to case manage the action. The plaintiff says that once the matter is trial ready, the trial should be scheduled in the usual course by trial management court.
13In my view, it is premature to determine whether I should be the trial judge. I am, however, seized of the matter at this time. This includes being seized to hear the motion to amend and to file a jury notice.
14Paragraph (a) of my draft endorsement above stated that “subject to any further submissions to me, the costs of the summary judgment motion shall be left to the trial judge.” [emphasis added] Accordingly, if I am not to be the trial judge, the defendants may make submissions that I should nevertheless determine the costs of the summary judgment motion. As to whether I should be the trial judge, this issue is perhaps most appropriately dealt with by way of a formal motion when the plaintiff seeks to amend his pleading and to file a jury notice.
15In the meantime, as set out in para. (a) above, the summary judgment motion shall not proceed. The parties should complete the additional discovery contemplated in paragraph (b) above and may then contact me to arrange a date for the motion contemplated in para. (c), and any other motions they wish to bring.
Paul B. Schabas J.