Andrew B. Matheson

The decision addresses a motion by Saad Aljabri, Mohammed Aljabri, and various corporate defendants to vary Mareva orders freezing their worldwide assets, seeking the release of frozen funds to pay legal fees.

The court grants the motion for all moving parties except Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd., finding that the Mareva Defendants have shown they lack access to other assets or reliable third-party funding, and that a variation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The court dismisses the motion by Dreams, finding insufficient evidence that it lacks access to other funds.

The decision reviews the legal test for varying Mareva orders and applies a balancing of interests, including the merits of the case, the complexity of the litigation, and the conduct of the parties.

Dr. Musson faced four counts of sexual assault and sexual touching of a person under 16.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his Section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found the total delay of 683 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 547.5 days.

The court found no defence-caused delay.

While an unexpected Crown leave of absence (11 days) was an exceptional circumstance, the significant delay (175 days) caused by the Crown's unlawful disclosure of youth records was not considered exceptional, as it was foreseeable and unavoidable, and the Crown did not act proactively to remedy it.

Consequently, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed all four counts against Dr. Musson.

This motion concerned an application by the accused, Robert Scott Musson, under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to and production of two sets of youth records: one related to an alleged "stranger assault" in 1997 and another related to a break and enter at Dr. Musson's home in 1998, involving the complainant A.L. and witness L.W. The court dismissed access to the 1997 "stranger assault" records, finding that a police caution constituted an extrajudicial measure under the YCJA, making section 119(4) applicable and precluding access.

For the 1998 break and enter records, the court found that Dr. Musson met the test under section 123 of the YCJA for access, demonstrating a valid and substantial interest and necessity in the interest of justice.

However, due to the nature of the allegations against Dr. Musson (sexual offences), the court ruled that the Mills regime applied, requiring a separate application under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code for actual production of these records, which were ordered to remain under seal.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to commence an action for secondary market misrepresentation against Pretium Resources Inc. and Robert A. Quartermain.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding conflicting expert opinions on the validity of a mineral resource estimate for the Brucejack Project, leading to a significant drop in share price.

The court granted leave, finding that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

The court determined that the concerns raised by Strathcona Mineral Services, a respected mining consultant, were material facts that a reasonable investor would consider important, despite Pretium's belief that the data was unreliable.

Furthermore, the court found a reasonable possibility that the defendants would not be able to establish the "no reasonable grounds to believe" branch of their reasonable investigation defense under s. 138.4(6) of the OSA.

The plaintiff, Enbridge Pipelines Inc., sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The defendants, Todd Williams and Wayne Hill, did not submit any costs submissions.

The court considered the factors under subrule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing the principles of indemnity, reasonable expectation of costs, and proportionality.

Given the defendants' failure to dispute the plaintiff's claim, the court found the amount claimed to be reasonable and proportionate.

Costs were awarded severally, with Mr. Williams ordered to pay $18,387.81 and Mr. Hill $7,000.00.

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to prevent Todd Williams and Wayne Hill from interfering with its pipeline maintenance work in the Hamilton, Ontario area.

The defendants asserted Aboriginal treaty harvesting rights under the Nanfan Treaty of 1701 as justification for their actions.

The court granted the injunction, finding that Enbridge established a strong prima facie case of trespass and irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored Enbridge.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that a duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal claims was a precondition for granting an injunction sought by a private party, emphasizing that self-help remedies are not condoned.

The applicant pipeline company sought an urgent ex parte interim and interlocutory injunction restraining unknown protesters from trespassing on a valve installation site required for pipeline infrastructure work.

Protesters had occupied the site to oppose the reversal of oil flow in a major pipeline project, delaying scheduled construction and causing economic disruption.

The court accepted that the applicant had proprietary rights through an easement and that trespass ordinarily supports injunctive relief, but emphasized that political protest engages Charter values and that protesters should have an opportunity to be heard.

Balancing property rights, economic harm, and freedom of expression, the court granted a short-term ex parte injunction due to the difficulty of identifying or serving protesters.

The injunction was limited in duration and required the applicant to return to court on notice if it sought continuation of the order.

The plaintiffs moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) on the basis that the defendant corporation was a shell entity with insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award.

The defendant resisted the motion by arguing that its counterclaim substantially overlapped with the main action and that the dispute would likely be stayed in favour of arbitration.

The court held that the counterclaim introduced significant new issues beyond those in the main action, including additional claims for accounting, dividends, and alleged financial misconduct, thereby increasing the plaintiffs’ litigation costs.

Applying the two‑part test for security for costs, the court found good reason to believe the defendant was a shell corporation and that the defendant failed to adduce evidence to rebut the presumption or demonstrate why security should not be ordered.

Security for costs was therefore granted and costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiffs.