Allan L. Morrison

This decision concerns a dispute within the Kidus Gabriel Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church in Ottawa regarding the legitimacy of the board of directors and control over church property.

The Applicants challenged the 2023 board election, alleging irregularities and interference by non-members aligned with a rival synod.

The court ordered a supervised special meeting to elect a new board, established a process for determining eligible voters, and mandated the reopening of the church for worship, with access for both parties pending the election.

The moving parties sought a stay of the Ontario Court of Appeal's order pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, emphasizing the stringent 'serious issue' threshold for leave to the Supreme Court.

The motion was denied because the factual situation was unclear, evidence of canon law was thin, and key parties (Diocese and Synod) were not involved, making it unlikely the Supreme Court would grant leave to appeal.

The defendants sought a third adjournment of two scheduled motions, including their cross-motion to dismiss the action or set aside default judgment, and the plaintiffs' motion to lift a stay on a writ of seizure and sale.

The defendants argued for the adjournment to file a new expert report after their initial expert's cross-examination raised concerns about the adequacy of the opinion.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing repeated delays and the defendants' attempt to "patch up" their case with new evidence.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the need for finality, the waste of judicial resources, and the impropriety of introducing new evidence after cross-examination to address perceived weaknesses, aligning with the principles against case-splitting.

This appeal concerned a dispute within the Medhanie Alem Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church regarding internal governance, specifically the holding of an overdue Annual General Meeting (AGM) and the application of canon law versus corporate bylaws.

The appellants, volunteer board members, challenged the application judge's order that mandated an AGM under the 2014 Bylaws with a court-appointed neutral chair, arguing these issues were non-justiciable matters of canon law or that the order conflicted with canon law.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the local Church, as an incorporated entity, is subject to civil law obligations like holding AGMs.

However, it found that the application judge's order unnecessarily conflicted with canon law by preventing the Church from amending its bylaws to conform with the 2016 Canon Law Promulgation before the AGM.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the conditions regarding the 2014 Bylaws and the court-appointed neutral chair for the AGM, and ordered a special or emergency meeting with a court-appointed neutral chair to allow the Church to vote on bylaw amendments before the AGM.

Following a successful application ordering the respondents to hold an annual general meeting for the election of directors, the applicants sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for elevated costs, finding the respondents' conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible or outrageous behaviour.

The court awarded costs to the applicants on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $58,000, payable by all respondents except one who did not oppose the application.

The applicants, members of an incorporated church and registered charity, sought an order compelling the church's board of directors to hold an annual general meeting (AGM) and elections, which had not occurred since 2016.

The respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction, claiming the church was a voluntary religious association and the dispute was ecclesiastical.

The Superior Court of Justice rejected this argument, finding the church was a corporation governed by the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010, and the applicants had established legal rights under the statute.

The court ordered the holding of an AGM under the supervision of a neutral chair for the purpose of electing a new board of directors.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child to the Czech Republic pursuant to the Hague Convention after the respondent father removed the child to Canada without her consent.

The father initially opposed the return, claiming the child's habitual residence was Canada and that the child objected to returning.

An independent assessment revealed the child wished to return to the Czech Republic.

The court found the child was habitually resident in the Czech Republic, the mother had custody rights, and the removal was wrongful.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the Czech Republic.

This decision addresses the costs of motions previously heard, where Rakhi Kalia's motion to dismiss the action or disqualify counsel was largely dismissed, and Adarsh Kalia's cross-motion for a timetable and case management was granted.

The late Mrs. Kalia's estate sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging Rakhi Kalia's delaying tactics.

The court found that while Rakhi Kalia's unsuccessful motion delayed the action, her conduct was not reprehensible enough to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to Mrs. Kalia's estate in the amount of $13,500.00, all inclusive.

The appellant, Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision that dismissed its motion to dismiss or stay an action based on lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The action was brought by the respondents (plaintiffs) following a tragic motor scooter accident in Thailand that resulted in the death of one sister and serious injury to another, who had travelled there through the appellant's "Teach in Thailand" program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding of a real and substantial connection to Ontario, particularly regarding claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligence committed in Ontario, and affirmed the application of the "good arguable case" test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Rakhi Kalia, brought a motion to dismiss an action commenced by her mother, Adarsh Kalia, alleging the plaintiff's lawyer lacked authority and had a conflict of interest.

Adarsh Kalia, through her litigation guardian, cross-moved for a timetable and case management.

The court found the lawyer was properly authorized, initially by a power of attorney and subsequently by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The court dismissed Rakhi's motion (except for granting leave to amend her Statement of Defence) and granted Adarsh Kalia's cross-motion, ordering a case conference to establish a timetable for the action.

The applicant's application for injunctive relief and reinstatement as a priest was dismissed.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $104,706.19, alleging the applicant engaged in sanctionable conduct and pursued fruitless litigation against improper parties.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not warrant sanction.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and the principle of fixing a fair and reasonable amount, the court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $50,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order releasing over $450,000 held in trust as security to the defendants.

The funds were deposited pursuant to an undertaking in exchange for the discharge of a construction lien.

The Master had ordered the release of the funds because the plaintiffs failed to set the action down for trial within two years, reasoning that the funds were akin to security paid into court to vacate a lien under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in conflating the discharge of a lien with vacating a lien, and that the undertaking clearly intended the funds to be held pending final resolution of the dispute.

The parties attended a case conference regarding the plaintiff's summary judgment motion.

The defendants raised issues with the plaintiff's materials, including the need for certified translations of Spanish documents and potential defects in the commissioning of an affidavit.

The court directed the plaintiff to provide certified translations and correct certain exhibits.

The court also directed the parties to schedule a three-hour hearing to address the defendants' anticipated motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit and to strike the statement of claim for failure to pay an outstanding costs award.

Following a 20-year traditional marriage, the parties disputed the respondent's income for support purposes, as he operated a sole proprietorship and deducted personal expenses to lower his taxable income.

The court imputed income to the respondent, including an income tax gross-up on unreported income, fixing his income at $215,000.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support back to September 1, 2012, finding the respondent's failure to proactively determine his true income blameworthy.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and secured by a life insurance policy.

The appellant challenged an order requiring him to execute transfers of certificates of possession over reserve parcels to satisfy a judgment debt owed to the respondent band.

The appeal turned on whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to make that order and whether certificates of possession were immune from seizure under s. 29 of the Indian Act.

The court held that a certificate of possession merely evidences an Indian's right of possession, while underlying title to reserve land remains with the Crown.

Reading ss. 29 and 89(1) harmoniously and in light of the statutory scheme and legislative history, the court held that the possessory interest is real or personal property of an Indian that may be seized or executed upon in favour of an Indian or a band.

The appeal was dismissed and appeal costs were added to the debt.

The plaintiff band sought to enforce a judgment debt against the defendant band member by seizing his certificates of possession for lands situated on the reserve.

The defendant argued that section 29 of the Indian Act prohibits the seizure of reserve lands under legal process.

The court held that while section 29 protects the underlying Crown title to reserve lands from seizure by non-Indians, section 89(1) expressly permits an Indian or a band to seize the real or personal property of an Indian situated on a reserve.

The court ordered the defendant to transfer his certificates of possession to the band to satisfy the debt.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider sanctions against the respondent for failing to file required insider trading reports, which also constituted a breach of a previous settlement agreement.

The panel approved a settlement agreement between Staff and the respondent, finding it in the public interest.

The respondent was ordered to cease trading in certain securities, reprimanded, and ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $32,000 and costs of $5,000.