William M. Sharpe

The court considered whether to stay five "protective actions" brought by a law partner against former clients and third parties following the misappropriation of trust funds by a defalcating lawyer.

The plaintiff sought to recover misappropriated funds on behalf of the firm's client beneficiaries.

The court found that continuing the litigation would be oppressive, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the defendants—many of whom were themselves victims—had been subjected to prolonged litigation without clarity on amounts owed or owing.

The court stayed all five protective actions, finding that the victims should not bear the burden of their former counsel's wrongdoings through litigation.

The court dismissed Smitten Baby Products Inc.'s action against FirstOnSite Restoration Limited (FOS), holding that FOS, as an insurance investigator retained by the insurer, did not owe a duty of care to the insured, Smitten Baby.

The decision reviews the requirements for establishing a duty of care in cases of pure economic loss, finding that Smitten Baby failed to plead facts establishing a proximate relationship or reasonable reliance.

The court also found that the statement of claim did not adequately plead causation.

Even if a prima facie duty of care could be established, policy considerations would negate it.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed as moot.

The decision addresses a motion by Martin Z. Rosenbaum and his law corporation for the recusal of the case management judge, Lorne Brownstone, in a complex, multi-party trust account litigation arising from alleged misappropriation by Vanessa Ibe.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the role of LAWPRO, and the management of case conferences.

The motion is dismissed, with the court finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and emphasizing the need for efficient case management in the interests of all parties, especially the victims.

The applicants and respondents entered into a business arrangement to open an optometry clinic, but failed to agree on final terms.

The applicant locked the respondent out of the business and ceased paying rent.

The court found the applicant's unilateral ouster of the respondent constituted oppression.

The applicant was ordered to repay the respondent's surplus capital contribution and the parties were directed to appoint an appraiser to determine fair market rent owed since the lockout.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant guarantor on a personal guarantee and a collateral mortgage securing a corporate credit facility.

The defendant argued there were genuine issues for trial, including that the bank took excessive security, failed to advise him to obtain independent legal advice, and breached its duty of honest performance.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the documentary evidence clearly established the terms of the security, the defendant was not owed a fiduciary duty, and the lack of independent legal advice did not invalidate the guarantee.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

The plaintiffs sought to settle an order approving a Pierringer Agreement with the settling defendants.

A non-party insurer, who was a defendant in a separate action brought by one of the plaintiffs, objected to the wording of the order, arguing it would affect its rights.

The court held that the non-party insurer had no standing to object to the order in this action and signed the draft order as agreed to by the parties.

This endorsement determined the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by Liberty Development Corporation and several derivative motions.

The plaintiff, York Regional Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1206 (YRSCC No. 1206), was awarded $60,000 in partial indemnity costs for successfully resisting Liberty's summary judgment motion.

Conversely, Liberty Development Corporation was awarded a total of $34,261.12 in partial indemnity costs for various motions initiated by YRSCC No. 1206, including motions to stay, a pleading amendment motion, and an expert report motion.

The court dismissed YRSCC No. 1206's claim for restitution of previously awarded costs and found no basis for costs against or in favour of Darcon Inc. The decision applied the "costs follow the event" principle but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that the parties' matching settlement offers regarding the withdrawal of motions effectively neutralized each other.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought an action for $75 million in damages for construction deficiencies against 53 defendants.

One defendant, Liberty Development Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it, arguing it had no contractual or operational connection to the project.

The plaintiff brought a preliminary motion to admit an expert report, which was dismissed for failing to meet the Mohan criteria.

The court dismissed Liberty's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring trial regarding Liberty's operational involvement, representations of its involvement, and its relationship with the construction manager.

The court also held that partial summary judgment was not advisable in the context of the litigation as a whole due to the risk of duplicative and inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued 53 defendants for construction deficiencies.

One defendant, Liberty, brought a motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to stay or quash the summary judgment motion, arguing Liberty failed to make proper documentary production and improperly refused questions on cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding no grounds to restrict Liberty's right to advance its summary judgment motion, but established a procedure for the plaintiff to bring a specific motion regarding the refused questions and documentary production prior to the hearing of the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claim for constructive dismissal and finding him liable for competing with his former employer using confidential information.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's transfer to a new position did not constitute a material change or constructive dismissal.

The Court also upheld the finding of liability for breach of duty regarding confidential information.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim against the respondents.

The appellant argued that he met the one-year limitation period by advising the respondent of his claim within one year.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that notice of a claim does not satisfy the statutory requirement that a 'suit is brought' within the limitation period.

The court also found no evidence that the respondent's conduct estopped them from relying on the limitation period.