William J. Leslie

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff’s counsel and law firm as solicitors of record on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest.

They argued that the lawyer had previously interacted with one defendant while representing a related corporation during regulatory proceedings involving dealership licence suspensions, and had allegedly received confidential information and provided legal advice.

The court applied the principles governing disqualification of counsel, including the test from MacDonald Estate v Martin regarding prior relationships and confidential information.

The court found no solicitor-client relationship between the lawyer and the defendants and no evidence that confidential information about the defendants had been imparted.

As no conflict of interest or breach of duty of loyalty was established, the motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint and shared custody of the parties' three children, one of whom has special needs.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the status quo of primary residence with her.

The court found that the parties lacked the necessary communication for joint custody and that the father had not presented compelling circumstances to change the status quo on a temporary basis.

The court ordered that the children remain in the mother's primary care with expanded access for the father, and set interim child support and section 7 expenses.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim arising from a share purchase agreement in which the plaintiff withheld escrow funds alleging breach of a non‑competition covenant.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant assisted a competitor by facilitating access to a refrigerated trailer through related entities, thereby providing a competitive “springboard.” The court found the plaintiff’s escrow payment request failed to comply with the contractual notice requirements and, more importantly, that the evidentiary record did not establish that the defendant affirmatively assisted or induced any competitive business in breach of the covenant.

The trailer was owned and leased by a separate corporation and was not unique or provided without compensation.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that summary judgment was appropriate.

Following a motion concerning the validity of an infant settlement within a global personal injury settlement, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs had successfully obtained an order setting aside the global settlement after it was discovered that required judicial approval of the infant settlement had never been sought.

The failure arose from the plaintiffs’ former counsel breaching an undertaking to obtain approval, while defence counsel failed to follow up on the undertaking.

The court concluded that both sides bore responsibility for the procedural failure that rendered the settlement vulnerable.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to sever a minor’s claim from a global $700,000 motor vehicle accident settlement and to set aside the settlement on the basis that the minor later developed catastrophic psychological impairments after witnessing the accident.

The settlement had been concluded in 2010 but court approval for the minor’s claim was never obtained as required by Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that settlements involving minors are not binding without judicial approval and that the evidentiary record did not support severing the minor’s portion from the global settlement.

Given the lack of court approval, absence of apportionment of the settlement funds, and the disbursement of most of the funds by former counsel, the court set aside the entire settlement.

The defendant’s request to order the return of the funds was declined because former counsel was not a party to the proceeding.

Following dismissal of claims against several defendants in a civil action, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

Multiple defendants sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff had advanced serious and unfounded allegations attacking their integrity.

The court reviewed the governing principles for costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, emphasizing reasonableness and the expectations of the parties.

Although the allegations were serious and unsupported, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the self‑represented plaintiff appeared misguided rather than malicious.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful defendants in varying amounts, payable within 30 days.

The self‑represented plaintiff commenced a new action against numerous parties, including her former employer, its insurers, opposing counsel, and her own former lawyers, arising from circumstances surrounding her termination and the settlement of an earlier wrongful dismissal action.

Multiple defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim or obtain summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by abuse of process, the prior settlement and release, limitation periods, and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiff was attempting to re‑litigate issues resolved in the earlier action and that many claims were legally untenable, including claims against opposing counsel and insurers who owed no duty of care to an adverse party.

Claims alleging breach of privacy, breach of confidence, defamation, Charter violations, and Human Rights Code violations were also found to disclose no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck against most defendants without leave to amend and summary judgment was granted dismissing the remaining claims of conspiracy and extortion against them.

A dispute arose from an agreement of purchase and sale requiring the defendant to reconvey a five‑acre parcel to the plaintiff following a severance under the Planning Act.

The defendant refused to sign severance documentation, asserting that its lease obligations with a third party required exclusive access and prevented consent to the severance.

The court held that the agreement’s entire agreement clause barred reliance on implied terms and that the defendant’s obligation to cooperate with the severance was clear and unconditional.

The proposed severance did not interfere with the approved development plan, and the defendant’s conflicting agreement with a third party did not excuse performance.

Because the plaintiff had effectively paid $200,000 for the reconveyed land and damages would be inadequate, the court granted specific performance compelling the defendant to execute documents and cooperate with the severance process.

Two actions were tried together regarding a 50-acre parcel of land.

In the first action, the plaintiff claimed $100,000 plus interest on a promissory note forming part of the consideration for the sale of a one-half interest in the property to the defendant company.

In the second action, the defendant company claimed the plaintiff and her husband made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the purchase.

The court dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding no such representations were made and the purchaser had ample opportunity to review the transaction details.

The court upheld the validity of the promissory note and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for $100,000 plus prejudgment interest.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice directing the sale of a property.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion in ordering the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment issued by the registrar.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the registrar had jurisdiction to sign the judgment as the claim was for a liquidated demand in money.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to explain the circumstances of the default or present a triable defence on the merits.

A brief appeal endorsement in which the court upheld the motions judge's disposition.

The court found the motions judge had given careful attention to the matter and had disposed of it appropriately.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed at $2,000.