S. Sofer

The moving defendants (the Vuletics) sought a stay of the action, alleging an abuse of process because the plaintiffs (the Carotis) failed to immediately disclose a settlement agreement reached with a co-defendant (Kegalj).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the settlement agreement did not entirely change the adversarial landscape.

The settling co-defendant was already adverse in interest to the moving defendants prior to the settlement, and the agreement merely required him to act as a truthful witness, which did not fundamentally alter the litigation's adversarial orientation.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's decision to quash summonses issued to non-party lawyers in a commercial arbitration regarding referral fees.

The arbitrator had quashed the summonses on the basis that the requested client names and accounting information were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the non-party lawyers were not bound by the arbitration agreement's expanded appeal rights, and under the Arbitration Act, 1991, there is no right of appeal for questions of mixed fact and law.

The court further held that the standard of review was reasonableness and the arbitrator's decision to quash the summonses and award costs was reasonable.