Shaun F. Laubman

The moving parties sought to object to the responding parties including their factums from the court below in their motion record for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement clarifying that anything before the court below may form part of the record on a motion for leave to appeal, and there was nothing improper about including the factums.

The court declined to reconsider its decision on the motion for leave to appeal, noting that its decision did not turn on the responding parties' factums.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding a motion for disclosure of non-parties to whom the plaintiffs had disseminated unredacted litigation documents identifying minor defendants.

Despite the plaintiffs' failure to provide submissions and their stated intent to seek leave to appeal, the court proceeded to decide the outstanding issue.

The court found that the plaintiffs had breached an interim publication ban and engaged in a strategy to release minor defendants' identities to the press.

To ameliorate the harm and ensure the efficacy of the publication ban, the court ordered the plaintiffs to disclose under oath the names and contact details of all recipients of the identifying documents.

The court heard urgent motions to seal the file and ban publication of minor parties' identities in a bullying lawsuit.

The plaintiffs, Mother Doe and Jane Doe, initially sought broad protection but then released unredacted pleadings to the press, identifying the minor defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct reprehensible, rejecting their late-filed affidavits and expunging other materials.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court granted a publication ban protecting minors' names, school attendance dates, and family details, but allowed publication of ages, grade levels, and general details of alleged bullying and harm, as these were deemed not to identify the minors to the general public.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiffs due to their abusive litigation tactics and breaches of court orders.

The plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit alleging bullying and sought a sealing order and publication bans without notice.

The defendants, including Havergal College and a minor defendant, also brought motions for similar protective relief.

The court held an urgent case conference, rejecting the plaintiffs' broad motion without notice but granting interim orders on consent to seal the court file and impose a publication ban on minor parties' identities and allegations.

The court also approved the plaintiffs' use of pseudonyms nunc pro tunc and appointed a litigation guardian for a minor defendant, both on consent.

The substantive motions for sealing and publication bans were scheduled for a later hearing.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Hood J. dated October 31, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent and $5,000 to the trustee.

The plaintiffs, a Chinese corporation and an Ontario resident, sued a Canadian law firm and two foreign defendants (a Hong Kong company and its Chinese principal) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and misuse of confidential information regarding the acquisition of shares in a mining company.

The foreign defendants moved to set aside service ex juris and to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, setting aside the service because the defendants did not reside or carry on business in Ontario and service did not comply with the Hague Convention.

The court further held it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario, and alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens, with China or Hong Kong being the appropriate forum.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer 143 questions refused during her cross-examination on an affidavit filed in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment motion was based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiff had refused questions on the basis of relevance and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that questions seeking the legal significance of material facts were not relevant to discoverability.

The court also held that the plaintiff had not waived solicitor-client privilege, as she had not voluntarily put her state of mind or legal advice in issue.

The motion to compel answers was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Vrancor Development Group Inc., brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property in Burlington, Ontario.

Vrancor alleged an oral joint venture agreement with the defendants, Marko Juricic, Brooklyn Contracting Inc., and Laurentian Business Centre Ltd., for the property's development, claiming breach of trust and fiduciary duty when the defendants closed on the property without Vrancor and transferred title to a company controlled by Juricic.

The defendants contended that discussions never materialized into a binding agreement.

Applying the test for CPLs, the court found a triable issue regarding Vrancor's claimed interest in the land, noting that the CPL would preserve the status quo given Vrancor's claim for a proprietary interest rather than monetary damages.

The defendant, Alan Eugeni, a former pilot for Air Georgian Limited, brought a motion to dismiss a defamation claim under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

Air Georgian's claim stemmed from a self-published book by Eugeni, his website, and comments quoted in a Financial Post article, primarily focusing on the book.

The court found that Eugeni's expression related to a matter of public interest (aviation safety).

While Air Georgian demonstrated substantial merit to its defamation claim and Eugeni conceded he had no valid defence for the purpose of the motion, the court ultimately concluded that the harm suffered by Air Georgian was not sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting Eugeni's expression.

The book had limited sales (247 copies), and broader public concerns about Air Georgian's safety were already present in widely circulated media and government reports.

The court noted a significant power imbalance and indicia of a SLAPP suit, leading to the dismissal of Air Georgian's claim.

The defendant Dream Office Real Estate Investment Trust ("Dream REIT") moved to strike the plaintiff Europro (Kitchener) Limited Partnership's claim against it, arguing improper lumping of defendants and failure to disclose reasonable causes of action for breach of contract, negligent/intentional misrepresentation, negligence, or unjust enrichment.

Europro conceded the breach of contract claim but maintained the others.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims for misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment were sufficiently pleaded, and that grouping the Dream defendants was not problematic in this context.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) for the estate of Elias Gefen brought a motion seeking payment of his significant fees and disbursements from disputed estate assets, a priority charge on these assets, and permission for interim payments.

The motion was supported by Harry Gefen and the estate of Yehuda Gefen, and opposed by Henia Gefen, Harvey Gefen, and a non-party co-tenant.

The court found that the ETDL was entitled to payment from the 'Property Interest' (disputed assets) and a charge on it, interpreting the original appointment order broadly to include assets with contingent estate interests.

The court denied the ETDL's request to further mortgage the properties to raise funds, citing potential adverse effects on non-parties.

The ETDL was granted the right to make interim payments from available distributions, subject to a final passing of accounts.

Costs were awarded against the opposing parties personally and the balance from the Estate.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a rent re-set clause in a 99-year commercial ground lease.

The clause required the property to be valued 'as if it were unimproved'.

The landlord argued this meant the land should be valued as if it were unencumbered and available for freehold condominium development.

The respondent tenant argued the valuation must account for legal restrictions preventing such development.

The court held that the landlord was issue estopped from re-litigating the interpretation decided in a 1990 arbitration.

Alternatively, the court found that the correct interpretation of the lease required the valuation to account for the legal encumbrances restricting the tenant's ability to develop the property.

The defendants (former clients) brought a motion for an assessment of their former law firm's accounts under the Solicitors Act and to stay the law firm's action for unpaid fees.

The law firm argued the request was out of time as it was made more than 30 days after the last account.

The court found that the accounts rendered were interim, not final, and the limitation period had not begun to run.

Alternatively, the court found special circumstances justified an assessment.

The law firm's action for unpaid fees was stayed pending the outcome of the assessment.

The applicant, Brian Hamm, sought an order preventing the respondent, Gordon R. Baker, a lawyer, from disclosing the contents of a legal file to an intervenor in an ongoing litigation.

Hamm claimed that he and Baker were in a solicitor-client relationship, or a 'near client' relationship, and that Baker owed him a duty of confidentiality.

The court applied the Jeffers indicia to determine if a reasonable person would conclude a solicitor-client relationship existed.

The court found that Baker acted solely as corporate counsel for Northern Superior Industries Ltd. and for another investor, and that Hamm understood Baker was not representing his personal interests.

The application was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellants achieved substantial success on the appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants $15,000 in costs of the appeal including taxes and disbursements.

The trial judge's costs order was set aside and the issue of trial costs was remitted to the trial judge for fresh assessment after damages on the mainstream agreement have been determined.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.

The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.

The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.

A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The appellants, Cana International Distributing Inc. and Micheline Ciolli, appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for breach of an exclusive distribution agreement with Standard Innovation Corporation for the distribution of the We-Vibe product.

The appellants claimed separate agreements existed for both the mainstream retail market and the adult industry market.

The trial judge found no binding agreements existed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that a binding mainstream agreement was reached when the parties signed a term sheet in counterpart in August-September 2009, and that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and an extricable error of law in finding otherwise.

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that no adult industry agreement was reached.

The Court also dismissed the appellants' arguments regarding quantum meruit and qualified privilege defences.

The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.

Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.

The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.

The appellants appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice finding that a transformer easement had expired.

The sole issue was whether the easement continued to be required for an approach lighting system for runway 30 at the Windsor airport.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their position that the easement remained necessary.

The appellants' own witness testimony, combined with evidence that the easement had not been required since 1965, long-term plans for runway 30 that did not contemplate the lighting system or transformer, and communications from Nav Canada all supported the finding that the easement had expired.