William O’Hara

The moving party brought a motion pursuant to Rule 59.06 to set aside a previous order of the Court of Appeal.

The court found the motion had no merit, declined to grant an oral hearing, and dismissed the motion.

The court also ordered that the moving party may not file any further documents or communicate with court staff regarding the appeal.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing an action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and conspiracy by a lawyer and his firm in relation to prior mortgage enforcement litigation involving the plaintiff’s property.

The court found no credible evidence supporting allegations that the lawyer had an improper relationship with another defendant or intentionally acted against the plaintiff’s interests.

The court also held that the plaintiff provided only assertions rather than cogent evidence capable of supporting the claims and that the action had no reasonable prospect of success.

Additionally, the claims were statute‑barred under the applicable limitation period and were further undermined by delay and laches.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the moving defendants.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action regarding copyright in land surveyors' plans, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant sought approximately $496,000, while the plaintiff argued for no costs or a maximum of $80,000, citing the novel point of law and public interest involved.

The court found that while the case raised a novel point of law, it did not involve a matter of public interest.

Applying the principles for fixing costs on a certification motion, the court awarded the defendant $200,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The plaintiff surveying firm sought certification of a proposed class action alleging that the operator of Ontario’s electronic land registry system infringed surveyors’ copyright in registered plans of survey by scanning, storing, and selling digital copies through online portals.

The motion was brought under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that although a cause of action for copyright infringement was adequately pleaded (with the exception of allegations based on “translation” into digital formats), the plaintiff failed to satisfy the remaining certification criteria.

The proposed class definition was merits‑based and there was no evidence that two or more persons wished to pursue the claim.

The court also found that the proposed common issues were largely individualized, particularly regarding ownership of copyright and consent, and that a class proceeding would not be the preferable procedure.

The appellants brought a motion to restore their appeal to the hearing list after failing to strictly comply with a consent order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the failure was minimal, explained, and caused no real prejudice to the respondent.

No costs were ordered.