Sean Pierce

The court determined the costs for seven different motions in a complex commercial action involving Mareva injunctions and proprietary claims.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful parties on each motion, balancing divided success and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.

In total, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay net costs to various defendants, while some defendants were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs for motions where the plaintiffs were successful.

The Divisional Court remitted a matter back to the Superior Court to determine whether disclosing the identities of third-party funders paying the living expenses of the Aljabri defendants posed a risk to their personal safety.

The defendants adduced unchallenged evidence that the Saudi regime had previously targeted the family and associates of the lead defendant following a 2017 palace coup.

The court found a material risk that disclosure to the plaintiffs could lead to the information reaching the Saudi government, jeopardizing the funders' safety.

The court ordered that the identities remain disclosed on a counsels' eyes only basis and not be provided to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant waived litigation privilege over a 'Proffer' document provided to the Attorney General of Canada for national security vetting under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that while the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, the defendant's stated intention of using it to promote trial efficiency constituted a waiver of privilege vis-à-vis the trial judge.

The court ordered the unredacted Proffer to be provided to the judge and established a comprehensive trial protocol, including the appointment of amicus curiae and advance vetting of sensitive evidence, to balance national security concerns with trial fairness.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a 90-day suspension of pay imposed by City Council for breaching the Code of Conduct.

The sanction followed an Integrity Commissioner's report finding the applicant made false statements and mishandled personal information at a town hall meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the factual findings were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Charter claims, noting they were not raised before the decision-maker and that the limits on her expression were justified by the need to protect public trust and staff dignity.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to disclose the identities of third parties financing their living expenses, arguing that disclosure posed a risk to the funders' personal safety.

The motion judge had failed to address this safety issue.

The respondents argued the appeal was moot because the underlying motion to vary the Mareva injunction had already been decided using a counsels' eyes-only agreement.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not moot due to the ongoing safety controversy.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the case management judge to determine the safety risk.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Vahid Mehdizadeh Asiyaban and 2468692 Ontario Ltd. against Halime Khatoun Aghdasi.

The trial judge had found that the appellant falsified evidence and solicited false testimony in support of a property claim in family litigation.

The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to reject the appellant’s uncorroborated evidence and found no basis to interfere with the credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of two decisions by the city council to suspend her pay for 30 and 60 days, respectively, based on reports from the Integrity Commissioner finding she breached the code of conduct.

The first breach involved a social media post targeting residents who opposed her minor variance application, and the second involved conduct promoting homophobic and transphobic attitudes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the Integrity Commissioner performs an investigative rather than adjudicative function, and that the council's decisions to accept the Commissioner's reports and impose the recommended sanctions were reasonable.

The court also denied the applicant's motion to amend her application to allege bias against the mayor.

The decision concerns a motion by Saad Aljabri and related parties for leave to issue a counterclaim in a complex civil action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and conspiracy was statute-barred under Ontario law, and that the applicants failed to prove that Saudi law applied or that any exception to the limitation period existed.

The court also found that the proposed claims for declaratory relief against additional parties were not supported by a tenable cause of action.

The risk of prejudice to the plaintiffs, including loss of the scheduled trial date and increased costs, further supported dismissal.

The decision grants the motion of Saad Khalid S. Al Jabri for leave to issue a commission and letters of request to obtain evidence from witnesses outside Ontario for use at trial.

The court finds that the anticipated evidence of the proposed witnesses is material to issues in the action, and that the request is bona fide.

The ruling addresses the test for issuing commissions and letters of request, emphasizing the importance of a fair and full trial, and applies the test to several categories of proposed witnesses, including alleged co-conspirators, foreign officials, and counterterrorism experts.

The court determined the appropriate prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates following an award of damages and punitive damages to the plaintiff for the improper registration of a certificate of pending litigation.

The court found that prejudgment interest should run from the date the certificate was registered, calculated at an average rate reflecting market changes, and that post-judgment interest applies to all amounts owing under the order, including costs.

The decision addresses a motion by Saad Aljabri, Mohammed Aljabri, and various corporate defendants to vary Mareva orders freezing their worldwide assets, seeking the release of frozen funds to pay legal fees.

The court grants the motion for all moving parties except Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd., finding that the Mareva Defendants have shown they lack access to other assets or reliable third-party funding, and that a variation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The court dismisses the motion by Dreams, finding insufficient evidence that it lacks access to other funds.

The decision reviews the legal test for varying Mareva orders and applies a balancing of interests, including the merits of the case, the complexity of the litigation, and the conduct of the parties.

This decision addresses a motion by the plaintiffs for production and directions regarding claims of privilege over thousands of documents and answers to questions refused on discovery in a complex, multi-party commercial litigation.

The court reviews the legal principles governing solicitor-client privilege, litigation privilege, and common interest privilege, and applies them to various categories of documents and questions.

The court provides detailed directions on the production of documents, the sufficiency of evidence to support privilege claims, and the process for resolving ongoing disputes about privilege.

This costs endorsement follows a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Halime Khatoun Aghdasi, in a dispute over two properties.

The court found that the defendant, Vahid Mehdizadeh Asiyaban, engaged in reprehensible conduct, including fabricating evidence, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The decision reviews the applicable legal principles for costs, the scale of costs, and the quantum, ultimately awarding the plaintiff $279,495 in fees plus HST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to compel the production of law firm trust ledgers and unredacted bank statements from the respondents.

The underlying action involves allegations of a massive international civil fraud.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the law firm trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption.

The Court also agreed that the 'future crimes and fraud' exception to solicitor-client privilege did not apply to civil fraud.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in presuming privilege over redacted entries in non-law firm bank statements without requiring the respondents to prove the privilege claim.

The issue of the unredacted bank statements was remitted to the motion judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that a document ("the Proffer") provided by the defendant to the Attorney General for Canada (AGC) under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act was not subject to privilege or that any such privilege had been waived, and an order for its production.

The defendant asserted litigation privilege.

The court found that the Proffer was created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation, making it presumptively protected by litigation privilege.

The court further held that the disclosure of the Proffer to the AGC, being a statutory compulsion, did not constitute a voluntary waiver of privilege, nor did fairness and consistency require waiver.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.

Following the breakdown of their common-law relationship, the parties disputed ownership of two properties.

The plaintiff sought a 50% interest in a commercial property registered to the defendant's corporation, while the defendant sought a 50% interest in a residential property registered to the plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff contributed 50% to the commercial property and awarded her a half interest via resulting trust.

The court dismissed the defendant's claims to the residential property, finding he made no contributions and fabricated invoices to improperly obtain a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The plaintiff was awarded $241,000 in damages for the improper CPL and $100,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's malicious litigation conduct.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants, Saad Aljabri and Mohammed Aljabri, to produce law firm trust ledgers and to answer certain questions from examinations.

The court held that trust ledgers are presumptively protected by solicitor-client privilege and that the plaintiffs failed to rebut this presumption.

The court further concluded that the "crime/fraud" exception to solicitor-client privilege does not apply to civil wrongs, including civil fraud, following the principle of horizontal stare decisis.

Consequently, the motion to compel production of trust ledgers was dismissed.

The motion to compel Mohammed Aljabri to answer undertakings and other questions was allowed, subject to redactions for privileged information in bank statements.

The defendants (Moving Parties) sought an order for the issuance of two letters of request to judicial authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to compel the examination of two witnesses, Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan and Fahad Nasser Alarfaj.

The Moving Parties argued these witnesses had relevant evidence for their motion to set aside Mareva orders, particularly regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the plaintiffs (controlled by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund) in this action versus unrelated U.S. litigation (LIV Golf Litigation) concerning PIF's independence from the KSA government.

The motion was unopposed by the plaintiffs.

The court found the proposed witnesses had prima facie relevant evidence and that the requirements under Rules 39.03 and 34.07(2) for examining non-parties and issuing letters of request for witnesses outside Canada were met.

The order for letters of request was granted.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility and production of compelled evidence in a civil contempt motion arising from alleged breaches of a Mareva order.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the motion judge's decision that answers to undertakings and further document production could not be compelled while the contempt motion was outstanding.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that evidence compelled prior to the contempt motion was admissible and did not violate sections 7, 11(c), or 13 of the Charter.

However, the court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in prematurely ruling on the admissibility of future answers to undertakings and in deferring the production motion.

The court held that the obligation to comply with the Mareva order continues despite the contempt motion, and admissibility should be determined when the evidence is tendered, based on whether the contempt motion is predominantly coercive or penal.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion for an approval and vesting order (AVO) to sell a real estate development property to a third-party purchaser.

A second mortgagee and joint venture participant brought a cross-motion to redeem the property or, alternatively, for approval of its credit bid.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that allowing a redemption after a court-approved sale process had concluded would undermine the integrity of the process.

The court granted the receiver's motion, holding that the proposed sale satisfied the Soundair principles, as the receiver acted providently, considered all stakeholders' interests, and conducted a fair and commercially efficacious process.