Sean Christopher Flaherty

This decision concerns the costs arising from an application to enforce Letters Rogatory in a class action context.

The Applicants sought production of source code and deposition from Modiface Inc., a non-party to the underlying U.S. litigation.

The court ordered Modiface to provide compiled and obfuscated code and to submit to deposition, but limited the scope of production.

The decision addresses the appropriate quantum and basis for costs, ultimately awarding $150,000 all-inclusive to the Respondent, balancing the principles of indemnity, proportionality, and reasonableness.

The Applicants sought to enforce Letters Rogatory from an Illinois court to compel ModiFace Inc., a Canadian non-party, to produce its un-obfuscated source code and provide deposition testimony in a class action against Amazon.

ModiFace resisted, arguing the request was too broad, unnecessary, and contrary to public policy due to the proprietary nature of its source code.

The court, applying Canadian principles of comity and public policy, denied the request for un-obfuscated source code, finding it not relevant, necessary, or otherwise obtainable under Ontario law, and that its production would be unduly burdensome and contrary to public policy.

The court ordered ModiFace to produce compiled and obfuscated code and submit to a deposition with specific procedural protections under Ontario rules.

This is a costs endorsement following the successful dismissal of a defamation action under anti-SLAPP provisions.

The defendants sought full indemnity costs, while the plaintiff argued for a reduced scale due to the defendants' delay in bringing the anti-SLAPP motion and their conduct.

The court, applying the framework from Levant v DeMelle, found that the plaintiff's action bore hallmark indicia of an anti-SLAPP suit, justifying the presumptive full indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's arguments regarding delay and conduct, finding the requested costs proportionate and reasonable.

This case concerns a dispute over a $50,000 deposit in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The purchasers refused to close due to the vendor's inability to deliver free and clear title, specifically the discharge of a private mortgage on or before the closing date.

The vendor counterclaimed for damages, arguing the purchasers were unreasonable.

The court found the vendor's failure to discharge the private mortgage constituted a fundamental breach of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, entitling the purchasers to the return of their deposit.

The vendor's counterclaim was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the defendants.

The appellants were entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis for the motion and proceedings below, with Corus Entertainment Inc. awarded $30,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $30,000, both inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

On the appeal itself, the appellants were successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, with Corus awarded $15,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $15,000, both inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The request for damages under section 137.1(9) of the Courts of Justice Act was denied.

An incumbent city councillor sued his political opponent and members of her campaign team, along with a local radio station, for defamation arising from statements made during a municipal election campaign.

The defendant candidate had referenced the plaintiff's dated sexual assault conviction and characterized it as consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation.

The motion judge dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed all claims, finding that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression during an election campaign.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which sought to set aside a land transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiffs alleged the transfer was made to evade an unpaid judgment debt against Said Meddaoui.

The defendants argued Said Meddaoui's liability on the judgment was extinguished by his discharge from bankruptcy in 2000, and he acquired the land after his discharge.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Said Meddaoui's discharge released him from the debt, and the plaintiffs' claims of an agreement to pay or non-disclosure of assets were not properly pleaded or supported by evidence.

The plaintiff, a former band administrator, sued the First Nation and two councillors for wrongful dismissal, mental distress, and defamation.

The defendants alleged just cause for termination, counterclaiming for misappropriation of funds.

The central issue was the authenticity of the plaintiff's employment contract, which she claimed justified her self-reimbursements for vacation pay, CPP, EI, and pension deductions.

The court found the plaintiff's version of the contract to be a forgery, concluding that her actions constituted theft and just cause for termination.

The defamation claim failed due to lack of evidence of publication by the named defendants.

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed, and the First Nation's counterclaim for $18,644.58 was allowed.