William John Manuel

An appeal concerning the disqualification of counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from a lawyer's transfer between law firms.

The lawyer, who had worked extensively on an insurance coverage dispute for the plaintiff, transferred to the defendant's law firm where he would work closely with opposing counsel.

The court addressed whether an ethical screen could adequately protect the former client's confidential information given the intense working relationship between the two lawyers.

The appeal court upheld the disqualification, finding that while the firm had achieved technical compliance with professional guidelines, the spirit of those guidelines was absent and the presumption of inadvertent disclosure could not be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

The Attorney General of Ontario (AG) brought a motion to set aside the court's appointment of two amici curiae for an appeal, arguing that the court exceeded its jurisdiction and that the AG's policy of paying only legal aid rates should apply.

The court denied the AG's motion, finding that the AG's refusal to negotiate reasonable compensation with the appointed amici undermined the court's judicial role and appointment power.

The court emphasized the need for a flexible approach to amicus remuneration, especially given the unique qualifications and prior involvement of the appointed amici in this complex constitutional and jurisdictional appeal.

The underlying appeal was stayed until the AG and amici could agree on compensation.

The defendants moved for a stay of an action concerning approximately $35 million in reserve funds retained from Casino Rama revenues.

The plaintiff alleged that maintaining the reserves breached limits imposed under a later revenue-sharing agreement, while the defendants argued the dispute arose under an earlier agreement that required arbitration.

The court considered the competence-competence principle and jurisprudence directing courts to defer to arbitration where it is arguable that a dispute falls within an arbitration clause.

Because the dispute arguably arose under the earlier contract incorporating arbitration provisions, the court held that the matter should proceed to arbitration.

The action was therefore stayed pending determination by an arbitrator of whether the dispute falls within the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy, and related torts arising from withdrawn murder charges.

The Crown defendants moved under Rule 21.01 to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, as an abuse of process.

The court held that witness immunity protected the police officers for statements connected to prior proceedings and that the officers neither initiated the prosecution nor owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The pleadings contained bald allegations of malice and collusion without the material facts required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also found the claim barred by a prior consent dismissal involving the Crown and concluded that allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

Tobacco producers commenced a proposed class action alleging that federal and provincial governments failed to enforce tobacco taxation and excise legislation, allowing contraband tobacco markets to flourish and causing economic losses to lawful producers.

The plaintiffs advanced claims in misfeasance in public office and negligence, asserting that public officials deliberately failed to enforce statutory regimes to placate certain communities.

The defendants moved under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the pleading failed to allege the essential elements of misfeasance in public office, including deliberate unlawful conduct and bad faith by specific officials.

It further concluded that the statutory schemes governing tobacco regulation did not create a private law duty of care owed to tobacco producers and that recognizing such a duty would improperly subject government policy decisions to tort liability.

The amended statement of claim was struck and the action dismissed.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.