Stephen Gleave

Following an injunction motion where the defendants were largely successful, the defendants sought elevated costs based on the plaintiffs' post-motion conduct.

The defendants alleged the plaintiffs sent misleading correspondence to clients and lawyers claiming they had won the injunction.

The court held that post-motion conduct outside the litigation process is not a valid basis for elevated costs under Rule 57.01.

The court awarded the defendants $25,700, representing one-half of their partial indemnity costs, reflecting their divided success and the late timing of their settlement offer.

The plaintiffs, who operate a specialized First Nations Specific Claims insurance business, brought a motion for an interlocutory and permanent injunction against former employees and independent contractors who started a competing brokerage.

The plaintiffs sought to prohibit the defendants from competing, soliciting clients, and using confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no non-competition or non-solicitation agreements existed, and the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants misused proprietary information.

The court ordered the defendants to return and delete any of the plaintiffs' confidential information in their possession, as proposed by the defendants.

At a case conference in a certified class action, the parties discussed scheduling upcoming motions.

The plaintiff sought to amend the Statement of Claim to add unjust enrichment, which the defendants opposed as it could impact the certification analysis.

The defendants proposed a motion to decertify the action due to a low number of class members.

The court scheduled the decertification motion for April 2023 and directed the plaintiff to defer their motion to amend until after the decertification motion is decided.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for the production of emails protected by solicitor-client privilege, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The defendant sought $16,190 on an actual indemnity basis, noting an unaccepted offer to settle the motion for $5,775.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarding the successful defendant $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the production of a chain of emails between the defendant's counsel and the defendant.

The defendant opposed the motion on the grounds of solicitor-client privilege.

After a confidential review of the emails, the court found that the communications involved instructions and legal advice between a solicitor, his law firm, and their client, and were intended to be confidential.

The motion for production was dismissed.