William S. Chalmers

The Plaintiffs moved to appoint Janina Gal as litigation guardian for Andrzej Gal, who was mentally incapable.

The Defendants opposed, arguing Janina had an adverse interest and was not indifferent to the outcome.

The court found Janina had a conflict of interest, as the litigation's success would result in properties forming part of Andrew's estate, which would then be transferred solely to Janina under Andrew's will, conflicting with Andrew's stated intention to divide properties equally among his daughters.

Furthermore, Janina was not indifferent to the outcome, as she stood to gain financially and had an acrimonious relationship with another daughter involved in the dispute.

The motion to appoint Janina as litigation guardian was dismissed, and the Plaintiffs were ordered to appoint a new, unconflicted litigation guardian or move to appoint the Public Trustee and Guardian.

Zeifmans LLP, a judgment creditor of Mitec Technologies Inc., brought an application seeking an oppression remedy against Mitec and its directors (Schwartz, Mandel, Rudin) and leave to commence a derivative action.

The court granted Zeifmans standing as a complainant for the oppression remedy, finding that Mitec's payment to shareholders before settling Zeifmans' invoice, despite a prior agreement and sufficient funds, was unfairly prejudicial and disregarded Zeifmans' reasonable expectations.

The court imposed personal liability on the directors due to their bad faith.

However, the court denied leave for the derivative action, finding it was not in the best interests of the corporation given its limited financial resources and lack of stakeholder support.

Troy Rennie sought an order for partition and sale of a property and rectification of title, arguing he was a joint owner.

Maureen Rennie opposed, claiming Troy was not an owner, or alternatively, that the sale should be denied due to malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct.

The court found that Troy was a valid joint owner, the transfer was a gift, not subject to an oral trust or resulting trust, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deny the partition and sale.

The court ordered the sale of the property and awarded costs to Troy, with a portion to be paid personally by the respondent's counsel due to inappropriate conduct.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application for a permanent injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dias from practicing law or providing legal services without a license.

Dias, who was unlicensed, had provided extensive legal assistance and representation to an individual, Don Fex, in multiple Superior and Divisional Court proceedings.

Dias argued she was merely assisting a friend, relying on the "friend or neighbour" exception under By-Law 4 of the Law Society Act.

The court found that Dias's actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law, as the services provided exceeded what a licensed paralegal could offer and were rendered in Superior Court, making the friend or neighbour exception inapplicable.

The court granted the permanent injunction, emphasizing the public interest in preventing unauthorized legal practice and noting the prejudice caused to Mr. Fex by Dias's actions.

The appellant, Anderson Tung, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medications due to his inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of his decision.

The Board's finding was based on evidence of his delusions and denial of mental illness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision under a reasonableness standard, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant lacked capacity to appreciate the consequences of his treatment decision.

The plaintiff, Rishi Drepaul, was terminated without cause from his employment as a Processing Improvements Coordinator.

He was provided 9 weeks' notice, which he argued was insufficient.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate notice period, the total remuneration including benefits, and the deductibility of Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The court found Drepaul was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to 11 months' salary in lieu of notice, with benefits estimated at 10% of his salary, and confirmed that EI benefits are not deductible from wrongful dismissal damages.