Thomas J. Corbett

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action after a 26-day trial, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant should be deprived of costs because two of its witnesses gave untruthful evidence.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct was not egregious.

The court also refused to completely deprive the defendant of costs, but applied a 10% reduction to the fee award to sanction the untruthful testimony.

The court significantly reduced the defendant's claimed expert witness disbursements, finding them grossly excessive, and fixed total fees at $483,300 plus disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, a grain elevator business and a seed business, sued their bank for refusing to advance funds to pay margin calls on their grain hedges.

The bank's refusal forced the plaintiffs to liquidate their hedges at a significant loss.

The plaintiffs argued the bank was required to give reasonable notice before refusing to advance funds, based on contract, negligence, and fiduciary duty.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were in default of their loan agreements and overdrawn on their credit limits.

The court held that the bank had no contractual obligation to extend further credit, nor was there an implied term, duty of care, or fiduciary duty requiring the bank to provide reasonable notice before refusing to fund the margin calls.

This protracted litigation involved a family dispute over a commercial property, with plaintiffs (minority shareholders and creditors) alleging oppression and conspiracy against defendants (majority shareholders, directors, and related entities).

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants engaged in self-dealing and unlawful acts to deprive them of their beneficial ownership and profits.

The court dismissed both the oppression and conspiracy claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their reasonable expectations were violated or that an unlawful conspiracy occurred.

The court noted the plaintiffs' own conduct demonstrated a lack of regard for the corporation's welfare and a failure to protect their interests.

A counterclaim by one of the defendants was also dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order that permitted cross-examination on an affidavit and required production of the applicant's law firm's litigation file.

The motion judge had ruled that litigation privilege did not protect the file and had issued a supplementary endorsement without a hearing.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's interpretation of litigation privilege under Blank v. Canada and holding that the proposed appeal involved a matter of fundamental importance regarding the right to a hearing on a motion under Rule 59.06(2).

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award under s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging procedural unfairness and bias by the arbitrator in a construction dispute arbitration.

The applicant also sought leave to appeal the award on a question of law under s. 45 of the Act.

The court held that the alleged deficiencies concerned substantive disagreements with the arbitrator’s reasoning rather than procedural fairness and therefore did not meet the narrow grounds for setting aside an award.

The court further held that the arbitration agreement incorporated rules providing that the award would be final and binding with no appeal, thereby excluding any right to seek leave to appeal.

The application to set aside the award and the request for leave to appeal were dismissed.

On a summary judgment motion, a law firm and solicitor sought dismissal of a third party claim alleging breach of authority, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, conspiracy, and interference with contractual relations in the context of a long‑running family shareholder dispute involving a commercial property and related mortgage financing.

The responding parties alleged that the solicitor improperly influenced a shareholders’ meeting, interfered with financing negotiations with a credit union, and failed to accept a proposed mortgage extension, ultimately contributing to losses following power of sale proceedings.

The court held that the pleadings did not properly allege conspiracy against the solicitor and that, as a matter of law, a lawyer generally owes no duty of care or fiduciary duty to non‑clients who are adverse parties in litigation.

The evidence showed no reasonable reliance by the responding parties, no disclosure of privileged information, and no causal link between the solicitor’s conduct and the alleged losses.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the solicitor and his firm.