Allan Sternberg

The appellants appealed an order of Justice Douglas Coo.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal devoid of merit, agreed with the motion judge's reasons, and dismissed the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sought a stay of an interlocutory injunction order restraining it from using the words 'Cricket Club' in its real estate development marketing, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding that the respondent had a very strong case on the merits for passing off, and would suffer irreparable harm through loss of control over its trade name if the stay were granted.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order appointing a receiver and setting conditions for the appointment.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the order was designed to implement a prior judgment and was therefore interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to the appellants seeking leave to appeal.

On an appeal from summary judgment dismissing a corporate appellant's crossclaim against a transfer agent, the court rejected the argument that the transfer agent breached either a statutory due diligence duty under s. 91(1) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act or a common law duty by issuing a share certificate after raising concerns with inside counsel.

The court held the respondent had acted in good faith and had not failed in its duty.

The appeal succeeded only to the extent of narrowing an indemnity order as premature and overly broad, limiting contribution and indemnity to the contractual provision and striking a further paragraph of the order.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a party-and-party basis.

The applicant sought a stay of an Ontario Court of Appeal order pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The application was made directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to s. 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act.

The Court dismissed the application for a stay, noting that under recent amendments, such applications should generally be made first to the court appealed from unless there are special circumstances.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant renewing the stay application before the Court of Appeal.

The appellant sought a declaration of possessory title over disputed land used as a parking area for twenty years.

The land had been continuously leased during that period except for the last eight years.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that the limitation period against the owner commenced only when the tenancies terminated.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' claim to recover possession was not barred by the Limitations Act.