Andrew Jia

This endorsement addresses two motions arising from a cybertheft of approximately $9.7 million from the applicant's bank account at the respondent bank.

The applicant, FACTOR, sought additional productions from the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), alleging a parsimonious approach to disclosure.

BNS, supported by other respondents, sought to convert the application into an action, citing material facts in dispute and complex issues.

The court largely granted FACTOR's production requests, ordering BNS to provide more details from its internal investigation, session logs (with confidentiality), and internal alert system details (with a secure mechanism).

The court also ordered the additional respondents, James Campagna and 10426377 Canada Inc., to produce all relevant documents.

The motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed as premature, with the court noting that the necessity of conversion could be revisited once the respondents deliver their full evidence.

The appellant's action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against real estate agents was dismissed on summary judgment due to being commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued she did not discover the material facts until later.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the discoverability period begins when the plaintiff knows or ought to have known the material facts, not the legal conclusion.

The court noted the appellant had previously pleaded the agents were her agents in a prior action, indicating knowledge of the material facts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an action under the anti-SLAPP regime (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The defendants, who successfully moved for dismissal, sought full indemnity costs totaling over $148,000.

The plaintiff argued against full indemnity, citing various factors including the nature of the litigation, power imbalances, and procedural delays.

The court, exercising its discretion, found that full indemnity was not appropriate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,000 to the individual defendants and $30,000 to Cybermedia, considering the specific circumstances and issues raised by the plaintiff.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, former Executive Chairman of a non-profit organization, sued the defendants over WeChat messages and a published declaration alleging election manipulation, financial opaqueness, and by-law violations.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the defendants had valid defences including justification and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff law firm sought an interlocutory injunction against a former employee to prevent client solicitation and disclosure of confidential information.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctive relief, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the employment contract and breach, irreparable harm due to difficulty quantifying lost referrals, and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The injunction was granted, restricting the defendant from soliciting clients, disclosing confidential information, and requiring her to forward client communications to the plaintiff firm.

Costs for the motion were reserved to the trial judge, except for a third party (Grillo Law) who was awarded partial indemnity costs for successfully excluding privileged evidence.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, arguing it was brought beyond the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff contended the claim was discoverable later due to alleged fraudulent concealment of the defendants' agency status.

The court found the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the material facts earlier, as evidenced by her pleadings in a prior related action.

The court dismissed the action as limitation barred, emphasizing that knowledge of material facts, not legal conclusions, triggers the limitation period.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated.

The trial, originally scheduled for two days, took over five months to complete in the Ontario Court of Justice, resulting in a net delay of 18 months and 2 days.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge erred in characterizing the appellant's self-represented status and court scheduling issues as exceptional circumstances.

The appeal was granted and the charges were stayed.

The plaintiffs requested a three-month adjournment of a scheduled mini-trial following the discharge of their counsel due to a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship.

The defendants opposed the adjournment, citing a history of delay and prejudice.

The court balanced the interests of the parties and the administration of justice, noting the lengthy procedural history, the plaintiffs' familiarity with the case, and the prejudice of further delay.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, ordering the mini-trial to proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action for damages arising from an incident where the defendant pushed the plaintiff, fracturing his teeth.

At the hearing, the plaintiff sought an adjournment to cross-examine the defendant.

The court denied the adjournment, noting that Rule 76 prohibits cross-examination on affidavits for summary judgment motions.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the evidentiary record inadequate, including the plaintiff's reliance on inadmissible apology evidence and insufficient proof of damages, concluding that a summary trial was the appropriate procedure.