Amanda Perumal

The plaintiff, CPOS Inc., brought a motion for an injunction to compel the defendant, Brandon Hwon Munn Fong, to return and have confidential information professionally wiped from his electronic devices by a third party.

CPOS abandoned its claim of improper solicitation.

The court ordered Fong to describe and delete the documents himself, rejecting CPOS's request for third-party wiping.

This decision addresses the costs of that motion.

Fong sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing CPOS's motion was heavy-handed and unsuccessful on the key issue.

CPOS argued its conduct was not improper and the relief granted was more robust than Fong's offers.

The court found Fong substantially successful on the main issue of the wiping method.

Considering factors under Rule 57, including success, claims, complexity, and offers to settle, the court ordered CPOS to pay Fong costs on a liberal partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, CPOS Inc., brought a motion seeking an order to compel the defendant, Brandon Hwon Munn Fong, to return and professionally wipe confidential information from his personal devices and email account.

The defendant agreed to search and delete the information but objected to an independent consultant performing the search.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no evidence of misuse of information by the defendant and stating that a detailed search of personal devices should not be ordered based on suspicion or speculation.

The court emphasized that such intrusive orders are reserved for exceptional circumstances with convincing evidence of intentional deletion of relevant information.

The court ordered the defendant to provide an affidavit listing documents, produce them upon request, and then delete them.

The applicants, gynecologic oncologists, sought declaratory relief against the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario (AMOSO), arguing they were wrongly deemed ineligible to receive funding for their academic services under a funding agreement.

They alleged procedural unfairness and substantive error in AMOSO's decision to discontinue their "Base Clinical Funds," claiming they were not compensated for academic services by another contract (Oncology AFP).

The court dismissed the application, primarily finding that the applicants lacked standing due to privity of contract, as they were not direct parties to the relevant agreements.

Alternatively, the court found that AMOSO's decision-making process was fair, thorough, and conducted in good faith, providing no basis for judicial intervention.

The appellant, Antonio Doria, appealed the dismissal of his action against the respondents, which was brought after he had already received and collected an arbitration award for the same damages.

The motion judge dismissed the action as an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d), finding that the plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate damages claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that Section 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not confer an absolute right to pursue separate actions against jointly liable parties if it constitutes an abuse of process, especially when a full opportunity to adjudicate the claim has already occurred and the award collected.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's request for leave to appeal the costs award.