Amiri Moses Dear

The applicant, Jie Zhang, sought to enforce judgments from Chinese courts against the respondent, Fan Zhou, a resident of Ontario.

The Beijing Xicheng District People's Court had issued a judgment in Zhang's favour for breach of contract, which was subsequently upheld on appeal.

Zhou later initiated a new proceeding in Guangzhou, attempting to undermine the Beijing judgment, but this action was dismissed as a "repeat complaint" and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice applied the principles for recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments, confirming that the Beijing judgment met the criteria of being rendered by a competent jurisdiction, being final, and being for a definite sum.

The respondent's defense of lack of natural justice was rejected, as the court found no evidence that the Chinese proceedings were contrary to Canadian notions of fundamental justice.

The application was granted, and the Chinese judgments were recognized and ordered to be enforced in Ontario.

The applicants were successful in an application to determine entitlement to life insurance proceeds.

They sought costs of $26,568.93, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle that they beat.

The respondents argued no costs should be payable because two of the applicants allegedly abandoned their claims.

The court rejected the respondents' argument, found the costs sought to be reasonable, and awarded the applicants their full costs of $26,568.93.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its main appeal decision.

The court awarded the respondents costs for two pre-hearing motions ($1,000 for the Motion to Expedite and $7,000 for the Motion to Introduce Fresh Evidence).

Due to divided success on the appeal itself, the parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the appeal.

The lower court's costs order was not disturbed as the basis for the appellants' partial success on one issue was not argued at the application level.

The appellants, owners of a servient tenement, appealed a decision dismissing their application to declare two registered rights of way (ROWs) abandoned by the dominant tenement owners.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that abandonment requires proof of a fixed intention never to assert the right, inferred from non-use and acquiescence to permanent obstructions.

The Court found a palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the 174 Strachan ROW, concluding it was completely obstructed by a permanent house extension and thus abandoned.

For the 176 Strachan ROW, which was only partially obstructed, the Court dismissed the appeal for total abandonment but allowed it for partial abandonment of the portion under the house extension, remitting this issue for further determination.

The parties could not agree on the terms of a formal order following a previous endorsement.

The court resolved the disputes over the competing draft orders, deciding to include a reference to the Investigative Receiver's Interim Report, declining to add a preamble regarding an undertaking as to damages, and including a paragraph explicitly dismissing the defendant's motion to set aside an ex parte order for lack of full and fair disclosure.

The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation, a Mareva injunction, and the appointment of an Investigative Receiver.

The defendant Bayview Creek (CIM) LP moved to set aside the injunction, arguing the plaintiffs failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The court found no material non-disclosure or lack of frankness regarding the plaintiffs' allegations of misrepresentation and breach of terms.

Due to the complex commercial interests involved, including mortgagees intending to bring enforcement proceedings, the court transferred the matter to the Commercial List and extended the interim orders.

The applicants sought a declaration that a right-of-way across their property, benefiting the respondents' adjacent properties, had been abandoned and extinguished.

The applicants argued that historical non-use, the disappearance of original sheds, and various obstructions demonstrated an intention to abandon the easement.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondents and their contractors had recently used the right-of-way for property renovations and that the applicants failed to prove an express or implied intention to abandon the property right.

A custody and access trial concerning a two-year-old child.

The mother sought sole custody with limited access for the father (8 hours on Saturdays for at least 8 months).

The father sought joint custody with alternate weekend access from Friday evening to Monday morning, plus mid-week access.

The court found that joint custody was not appropriate due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother but significantly expanded the father's access beyond what the mother proposed, finding that the mother had been unnecessarily restrictive.

The court phased in overnight access over a short period, ultimately ordering alternate weekend access from Friday after day care to Monday morning, with mid-week access to be determined at a further hearing.