Adam Stikuts

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision dismissing a motion for production of two documents (a Statement of Work and final report prepared by Ernst & Young) that were referenced in an affidavit filed by a non-party representative.

The underlying dispute concerned whether Ernst & Young's acquisition-related records should be produced in a broader non-party production motion.

The Associate Justice declined to compel production of the two documents, finding that doing so would be improper and would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action by creating a risk of inconsistent findings between the refusals motion and the main motion.

The appeal court upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's discretionary determination that the requests were improper, and that her consideration of fairness, proportionality, and the risk of inconsistent results was appropriate.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.10 for the disclosure of documents referenced in an affidavit sworn by a non-party, and to compel answers to questions refused during the non-party's cross-examination.

The requested documents were a subset of those sought in an underlying, pending Rule 30.10 motion for non-party production.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this stage would interfere with the orderly progress of the action, risk inconsistent findings with the pending Rule 30.10 motion, and disturb the fairness of the procedure for seeking non-party productions.

This appeal concerned an estate dispute where the appellant sought to exercise dissent rights under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) in response to the liquidation of a family-owned holding company.

The application judge found these rights were waived by a Unanimous Shareholders Agreement (USA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the USA's provisions clearly waived dissent rights and that this interpretation was consistent with the company's purpose of managing estate assets.

The applicants sought a declaration that Lloyd's Underwriters had a duty to defend them in an action brought by a former business partner, Gavin Dabron.

Dabron's action included claims for breach of confidence and negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation related to a prior settlement and company valuation.

The court found that while the claims initially fell within the policy's coverage, they were ultimately excluded by the "prior and pending litigation" clause, as both the confidentiality and valuation claims arose directly from earlier litigation between the parties.

The application for a duty to defend was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent, Heliotrope Investment Corporation, provided costs submissions as requested, while the appellants, Jonathan Gary Beach and Martha Lorraine Beach, chose not to make any submissions.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and relevant taxes.

The appellants, Jonathan Gary Beach and Martha Lorraine Beach, appealed a bankruptcy judgment.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Court of Appeal denied, finding it could have been presented earlier or lacked evidentiary value.

The Court found no error in the application judge's findings that the appellants owed a debt of $1,000 or more and had generally ceased to meet their liabilities.

The application judge also correctly exercised discretion in not refusing or staying the bankruptcy order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, a video game company and two of its employees, brought an urgent ex parte motion for a Norwich Pharmacal order against the respondent telecommunications provider.

The employees had been subjected to severe online harassment, doxxing, and racist threats by anonymous individuals using the respondent's services.

The court granted the order without notice to the respondent, finding that the respondent's policy of notifying customers about such requests could lead to further serious harm, including 'swatting'.

The court held that the test for a Norwich order was met, as the discovery was necessary to identify the wrongdoers for potential legal or police action.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Bonsawin J. dated November 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The defendants appealed a prothonotary's order dismissing their motion to stay the proceedings in favour of arbitration in Bermuda.

The plaintiff alleged copyright, trademark, and radiocommunication infringement.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal, finding that the prothonotary applied the incorrect legal test.

Following the competence-competence principle from Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs, the Court held that the complex issues of mixed fact and law regarding the scope, validity, and termination of the agreement must first be determined by an arbitrator.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on 34 promissory notes totaling $998,181.23 and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim.

The parties filed voluminous records totaling over 2,000 pages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the sheer volume of evidence made it impossible to determine if there was a genuine issue for trial within the scheduled two-and-a-half-hour motion, and concluded the matter was not suitable for summary judgment.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an adjournment order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction and declaratory relief to prevent the plaintiff from interfering with land development projects governed by Joint Venture Agreements.

The plaintiff, whose principal had been terminated as project manager, had been contacting third parties and refusing to execute necessary documents, jeopardizing the final plan approval of the Johnson Point project.

The court found that the defendants had final decision-making authority under the agreements and met the test for a prohibitory interlocutory injunction.

The court granted the requested relief, limiting it to the Johnson Point project, and ordered the plaintiff not to cancel a related environmental permit.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order to transfer ownership of an Endangered Species Act benefit permit to the defendants.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to comply with a prior security for costs order and failed to serve the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring the motion despite a minor delay in paying costs, but dismissed the motion on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the permit without notice to the Ministry.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs, primarily based on two unpaid costs awards totaling $125,000.

The court applied Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the holistic "justness" principle from Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation.

The court found the defendants satisfied the initial onus due to the unpaid costs.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that an order for security would be unjust, particularly regarding impecuniosity, the merits of its claim, and its dilatory conduct in litigation.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to post $150,000 security for costs, with a provision to reduce the amount to $20,000 if the outstanding costs awards plus accrued interest were paid within 60 days of the motion hearing.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the plaintiff's controlling mind, Mr. Beach, for allegedly violating previous court orders, and an interlocutory injunction to restrain him from interfering in the management of joint venture development projects.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding it unnecessary as the parties had reached an understanding regarding the interpretation of the joint venture agreements.

The court also declined to make a finding of contempt, noting that while Mr. Beach's conduct was not condoned, it did not rise to the level requiring a contempt order and would be better addressed through costs.

The defendants in a mortgage enforcement action brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation over nine parcels of land to stop power of sale proceedings.

They alleged that the mortgages were unenforceable due to the plaintiffs' breach of joint venture agreements and bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had no reasonable claim to an interest in land, had not offered to redeem the mortgages, had not pleaded fraud affecting the right to redeem, and that damages would be a sufficient remedy.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver and an interlocutory injunction, the parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $290,313.82, alleging improper conduct by the plaintiff.

The court found no reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, including the overriding principle of reasonableness and the defendants' divided success on their own motion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $120,000.

In a commercial joint venture dispute over four waterfront land developments, the moving party sought appointment of a receiver-manager or, alternatively, an interlocutory injunction preserving its principal's role as project manager and restraining enforcement of related debt obligations.

The court held that the claimed breaches of the joint venture agreements and asserted fiduciary duties raised serious issues, but not a strong prima facie case, and that any loss was compensable in damages rather than irreparable.

Applying the interlocutory receiver and injunction frameworks, the court found the balance of convenience strongly favoured the responding parties, particularly because the requested relief would effectively rewrite negotiated contractual rights and jeopardize project completion and marketability.

The court also held that a constructive trust notice had been improperly registered under the Land Titles Act, discharged it subject to a 30-day opportunity to seek a certificate of pending litigation, and dismissed the action against one individual defendant.