Tim Gleason

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay class proceedings and individual actions against them.

They argued they were entitled to a stay because they did not receive timely disclosure of a partial settlement between the plaintiffs and a co-defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the strict partial settlement disclosure rule does not apply to class proceedings, which are governed by the settlement approval regime in the Class Proceedings Act.

The court found the appellants received timely disclosure and were not prejudiced.

The defendants sought costs of a variance motion on a substantial indemnity scale against the plaintiff's former counsel, Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation.

The court found that while Monkhouse's conduct in the underlying action warranted a varied costs order, its conduct during the variance motion itself was professional and not reprehensible.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive, representing a mid-point between the parties' submissions.

The defendants in a decertified class action brought a motion to vary a $100,000 costs order to make Class Counsel, rather than the representative plaintiff, responsible for payment.

Class Counsel had refused to pay the costs, claiming they were not retained for 'collections' and refusing to disclose whether their retainer included a standard costs indemnity.

The court found it was not functus officio because the lack of a costs indemnity was new and critical evidence that contradicted the standard practice and representations made at certification.

Relying on Rule 59.06, its inherent jurisdiction, and section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court varied the costs order to add Class Counsel as a party responsible for payment.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to restrain a harassment investigation, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling over $38,000, while the plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on proportionality and reasonableness.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Queen's University and Cunningham, and $10,000 for Anand, balancing the plaintiffs' chaotic conduct of the motion with principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs, a university student and a community member, brought an urgent motion seeking to stay or enjoin an ongoing harassment investigation by Queen's University and its independent investigator.

They also sought a mandatory order requiring the University to investigate a separate discrimination complaint.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the investigator's independence was not compromised, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative process, and no mandatory duty to investigate the discrimination complaint had been triggered.

The moving party sought review of a motion judge's order dismissing her request for an extension of time to cross-appeal a Divisional Court decision that had upheld the Law Society of Ontario's invalidation of her barrister examination result as procedurally fair and reasonable.

The moving party had been among candidates whose exam results were voided following an investigation into widespread cheating.

The panel held that the motion judge made no error in finding the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the procedural protections sought were ancillary to a right to a hearing that this court had previously held was not required, and candidates receiving a lesser sanction could not be accorded greater procedural fairness than those who faced more serious sanctions.

The motion was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The moving party, a construction company, sought to transfer its appeal of a lien action dismissal order from the Court of Appeal to the Divisional Court pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, or alternatively an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The motion judge found that conflicting precedents — TRS Components and Arcamm — created genuine uncertainty over whether the appeal route under s. 71 of the Construction Act lay to the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal.

Unable to conclude the appeal was filed in the wrong court, the motion judge declined the transfer.

The extension of time was granted given that both parties had operated under the shared mistaken assumption that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, which was attributable to the competing jurisprudence rather than inadvertence.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeal for delay after the appeal was perfected approximately ten months late.

The court applied the test for dismissing an appeal for delay and found that the appellants had maintained an intention to appeal, the delay was largely due to counsel's inaction, and the respondent had not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the delay.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion to add respondents as defendants to a lawyer's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty action, arguing the motion judge erred in determining the limitations issue on a motion to amend.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding the appellant failed to adduce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and the claims were statute barred as the motion was brought more than two years after discovery according to the unrebutted presumption.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect a cross-appeal against a Divisional Court decision regarding the Law Society of Ontario's voiding of licensing exam results and registrations following a security breach.

The Court of Appeal had previously upheld the LSO's decision to void registrations as procedurally fair, finding the decision to be administrative rather than adjudicative in nature.

The moving party sought to challenge the fairness of the voiding of her barrister exam result and the LSO's failure to disclose a key statistical report (the Caveon Report).

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed cross-appeal lacked merit and that the justice of the case did not favour granting an extension of time.

The appellant lawyer appealed the dismissal of his action arising from statements about his COVID-19 litigation, public fundraising, and a complaint made to the legal regulator.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned expressions related to matters of public interest, including the conduct of publicly funded litigation challenging pandemic restrictions and the right of members of the public to complain to the regulator.

The court found no reversible error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the appellant failed to clear the merits hurdle because the respondents had valid defences, including absolute privilege, justification, and fair comment.

It also upheld the finding that the appellant failed to prove sufficiently serious harm caused by the expressions to outweigh the strong public interest in protecting them.

The appeal, including the costs appeal, was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the Law Society of Ontario’s successful motion before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court orders each of the moving parties severally liable for costs of $200, payable to the Law Society of Ontario, on a partial indemnity basis.

The court dismissed Aqib Rahman's action against Dewart Gleason LLP and Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The claim alleged civil fraud by the defendants in defending lawyers in prior litigation, but the court found that the doctrine of absolute privilege, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Rahman v. Elia Associates, provided a complete defence.

The court held that the action was devoid of merit, sought to relitigate settled issues, and should not proceed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by 13 respondents to re-open an appeal regarding the Law Society of Ontario’s decision to void their licensing exam results and registrations due to exam integrity breaches.

The court found that the moving parties had not been denied judicial review, that their complaint was about the adequacy of reasons rather than a rare circumstance justifying re-opening, and that the interests of justice did not require reconsideration.

The court held that the Law Society’s actions were consistent with its by-laws and that the moving parties’ arguments had been addressed.

This endorsement addresses a scheduling dispute in a class action involving dentists who purchased insurance policies brokered by CDSPI Advisory Services Inc. and issued by Aviva companies.

The plaintiffs sought to adjourn upcoming motions for settlement approval and a stay of proceedings, pending an anticipated Court of Appeal decision in Thrive Capital Management Ltd. et al v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc. et al., which may reconsider the principles in Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited regarding partial settlements.

The court declined to adjourn, emphasizing the need for timely resolution and noting that new procedural rules (Rule 49.14) would be in force for the scheduled hearing.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its administrative decision to void the registrations of 20 licensing candidates implicated in a cheating scandal.

The Divisional Court had found the LSO breached procedural fairness by not holding oral hearings before voiding the registrations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the Baker factors and conflated the LSO's administrative licensing functions with its disciplinary good character functions.

The Court held that the written process provided by the LSO, which included disclosure and multiple opportunities to respond, satisfied the duty of procedural fairness.

The Court also admitted new evidence and found the Divisional Court breached procedural fairness by making costs orders without allowing submissions.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants for leave to late-serve an expert report on the standard of care in a real estate negligence action.

The report was served after the pre-trial conference, and the Third Parties opposed its admission.

The court applied the test under Rule 53.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay, whether prejudice would result, and whether the trial would be unduly delayed.

The court found the explanation of solicitor’s inadvertence to be at the low end of reasonable, but accepted it.

The court concluded that any prejudice could be managed by costs or adjournment, and that the trial would not be unduly delayed.

Leave was granted to admit the report, subject to strict terms to protect the Third Parties.

The court considered a motion by LLF Lawyers LLP to dismiss the action against them on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged that confidential information was disclosed by an LLF employee to her spouse, who then defamed the plaintiff.

The court found that the statement of claim, as supplemented by particulars, disclosed a cause of action in favour of Michael Kelsey against LLF Lawyers LLP, and dismissed the motion as against him.

The action by The House Consulting Group Inc. was dismissed for not pleading a lawyer-client relationship or disclosure of its confidential information.

The appellant, a condominium unit owner, sued the lawyers who represented the condominium corporation in prior litigation, alleging fraud, perjury, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that statements made by solicitors in the course of litigation are protected by absolute privilege, there is no civil cause of action for perjury, and solicitors owe no duty of care to opposing parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Sutherland J. dated June 11, 2024.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $1,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties who appeared, with the amount reduced due to the failure to file a cost outline.