William Fuhgeh

The defendants brought a motion for costs thrown away and security for costs after the plaintiff failed to attend a unilaterally scheduled mediation.

The plaintiff had been deported from Canada and had no assets in Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel acted disrespectfully by concealing the plaintiff's unavailability for mediation, awarding costs thrown away.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs, finding his evidence of impecuniosity unreliable and his underlying claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of insurance contract almost certain to fail.

The plaintiff proceeded with an undefended claim against the defendant.

The court found that the defendant breached its contract with the plaintiff, was unjustly enriched, and improperly used the plaintiff's trade name, Kerkuk Café.

The plaintiff was directed to provide a draft judgment summarizing the losses and damages.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $25,000.

The defendant in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion for the production of documents over which the plaintiff claimed settlement and solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the documents and found that privilege had been waived or exceptions applied, as the documents related to the implementation of a settlement and the plaintiff's access to independent legal advice, which were central to the defence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the documents, allowing only one redaction for specific legal advice.

The court addressed competing procedural issues arising from a scheduled motion involving requests to compel mediation, amend pleadings, obtain discovery-related relief, and compel production of allegedly privileged documents.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disputed the timetable for intervening procedural steps.

The court imposed a revised schedule governing delivery of an expert report, responding affidavit, cross-examinations, and factums, culminating in a new motion date.

The court also struck portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit that contained counsel’s opinions rather than admissible facts and refused to admit a responding affidavit containing inflammatory allegations.

Costs of the attendance were reserved to the hearing of the motions.

The court addressed competing procedural issues arising from a scheduled motion involving requests to compel mediation, amend pleadings, obtain discovery-related relief, and compel production of allegedly privileged documents.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disputed the timetable for intervening procedural steps.

The court imposed a revised schedule governing delivery of an expert report, responding affidavit, cross-examinations, and factums, culminating in a new motion date.

The court also struck portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit that contained counsel’s opinions rather than admissible facts and refused to admit a responding affidavit containing inflammatory allegations.

Costs of the attendance were reserved to the hearing of the motions.