Solomon McKenzie

Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.

The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.

The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.

However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.

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.

The plaintiffs successfully defended a motion by the defendant to amend the certified class definition.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $88,296.33.

The defendant argued the amount was too high and suggested $45,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs request slightly excessive due to unwarranted allegations of abuse of process, which unnecessarily protracted the matter.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 20% and awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, payable within 30 days.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, citing numerous deficiencies in the plaintiff's claim, including lack of particulars, misapplication of legal principles (e.g., Charter rights, malicious prosecution), and jurisdictional issues.

The plaintiff, a self-represented LLM holder, indicated an intent to discontinue but failed to address the court's concerns regarding the claim's validity.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff's pleading vexatious and unmeritorious, and ordered that the plaintiff must obtain leave of the court before commencing any future action against these defendants, requiring a draft statement of claim for review.

The defendants requested that the court consider dismissing the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the 47-page statement of claim and found it to be confusing, lacking particulars, and raising serious jurisdictional concerns.

The court noted that the claim included allegations of malicious prosecution and Charter breaches against individual defendants without a proper basis.

Consequently, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome.

The Defendant, Bell Mobility Inc., brought a motion to amend the certified class definition in a class action, seeking either to exclude business customers or to compel the addition of a new sub-class with a separate representative plaintiff.

The Defendant argued that business customers might be statute-barred or had distinct interests requiring separate representation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation issue was not ripe for determination on a class-wide basis as it required individualized discoverability analysis.

The court also declined to create a new sub-class, emphasizing judicial economy and the principle against "litigation in installments" given the advanced stage of the proceedings.

The plaintiff professional corporation brought an action against the Law Society of Ontario, several individuals, and a Superior Court judge, seeking damages and declarations related to a previous unsuccessful application.

The defendants requested the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the judge had absolute immunity, the plaintiff corporation had no cause of action, the issues had already been decided in the previous proceeding, and the pleadings contained inflammatory and bellicose language.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's proceeding, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court found the application to be scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious, noting the applicant, a self-represented lawyer, engaged in egregious misconduct including racist and personal attacks against the respondents and their counsel.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Law Society of Ontario in the amount of $33,000 and to the individual respondent in the amount of $12,742.86, emphasizing the need to sanction the applicant's abuse of the justice system.

The applicant lawyer commenced an application seeking to halt a Law Society of Ontario investigation into complaints regarding his social media posts, and claiming damages against the LSO and the individual complainants.

The respondents moved to strike the application.

The court dismissed the application on the basis that it was improperly commenced by Notice of Application rather than a Statement of Claim.

In the alternative, the court held it would have struck the applicant's pleadings in their entirety without leave to amend under Rule 25.11, finding them to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented applicant filed voluminous, non-compliant, and electronically restricted materials, including an unauthorized transcript of a prior hearing.

The court struck the unauthorized transcript for contravening section 136 of the Courts of Justice Act and issued strict procedural directions to manage the unwieldy litigation, scheduling special appointments for the applicant's publication ban motion and the substantive application.

The self-represented applicant lawyer brought an application against the Law Society of Ontario and several individuals following online disputes and subsequent professional complaints.

The matter came before the court on a regular motions list but was plagued by procedural irregularities, including improper service, failure to file application records, and disputes over representation.

The court adjourned the matter to a special appointment hearing, provided strict timetables for the filing of materials, and dismissed the applicant's request to remove opposing counsel from the record for alleged sharp practice.