Anisah Hassan

JSC Chukotka Mining and Geological Company (Chukotka) sought to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC) against Medivolve Inc. (Medivolve).

Medivolve opposed this application and brought a cross-application to set aside the arbitral award, arguing improper notice of the arbitration proceedings, inability to present its case, and unequal treatment by the arbitral tribunal.

The court found that Medivolve had received proper actual notice of the arbitration, despite courier delivery failures, and that its own dilatory actions contributed to its alleged inability to present its case.

The court also determined that the tribunal did not treat the parties unequally.

Consequently, the court granted Chukotka's application to recognize and enforce the arbitral award and denied Medivolve's application to set it aside, awarding costs to Chukotka.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad (also known as Ahmad Yousef), brought three appeals from Superior Court orders dismissing his actions under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal considered dismissing the appeals and revoking the appellant's fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.

The court found the proceedings to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, lacking intelligible grounds or causes of action.

The panel review motions for two appeals (McMaster University and Chaimowitz) were dismissed under r. 2.1.02, and the third appeal (Google) was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 for failure to perfect.

The court also revoked the appellant's fee waivers and prohibited further fee waiver requests without judicial permission.

No costs were awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal and a motion to quash.

The respondent, successful on the appeal, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $230,000.

The appellants argued for a net award of $30,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, agreeing that costs for the unsuccessful motion to quash should be deducted.

The court ultimately awarded the respondent $90,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, finding the amounts and issues involved in the appeal significant.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision that denied leave to appeal an arbitration award exceeding $100 million.

The central issue was whether the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law, specifically interpreting phrases like "finally settled" and "final and binding" in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and ICC Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, thereby confirming that leave to appeal was not available.

The court also addressed and dismissed a motion to quash the appeal, clarifying the narrow circumstances under which a denial of leave to appeal by a Superior Court judge can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The appellants, an Indian law firm and its senior partner, appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay or dismiss an action brought by Kyko Global Inc., an Ontario corporation.

The action alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to a legal opinion provided by the appellants.

The appellants argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on presumptive connecting factors (tort occurring in Ontario, contract made in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to demonstrate that Mumbai, India, was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs in a proposed consumer protection and competition law class action sought court approval of a third-party funding agreement with Harbour Fund IV.

The plaintiffs, who are of modest means, required the funding to prosecute the action against several large travel booking companies.

The court applied the four-factor test for third-party funding and found the agreement was not champertous, was necessary for access to justice, and adequately protected the defendants' interests.

The motion was granted and the funding agreement was approved.

The respondent, Google Canada, brought a motion in writing on consent to dismiss the application against it and to dismiss the applicant's motion to add proposed respondents.

The court adjourned the motion, finding several procedural deficiencies.

Specifically, the underlying application and motion were previously stayed and the stay had not been lifted, the moving party failed to provide necessary evidence or copies of the originating processes, and there was no basis to proceed without notice to the other named respondents.

This is a supplementary decision to the Court of Appeal's judgment allowing the appeal in part.

Following the release of the main decision, the respondent requested that funds paid into court by the appellants as security for costs be paid out to the respondent.

The appellants did not oppose this request.

The court ordered that the funds held by the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice be paid out to the respondent.

On appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellants' action for breach of contract and repudiation.

The appellants, who operated methadone treatment clinics, hired the respondent physician under a contract requiring her to remit 45% of OHIP billings and containing a non-competition clause.

Following the dissolution of the appellants' joint venture with another clinic operator, the respondent continued working at the jointly-operated clinics.

The trial judge found the contract frustrated by intervening events and that the non-competition provision was not breached.

The appellants appealed, arguing errors in the frustration analysis and interpretation of the non-competition clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on frustration and contractual interpretation but allowed the appeal in part, awarding the appellants $8,194.59 for underpayment during the period prior to the alleged repudiation.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a Mareva injunction but successful in obtaining an order for interim possession of a jewellery set, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success was substantially divided and the costs sought by the plaintiff were excessive.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The plaintiff sought a worldwide Mareva injunction to freeze assets and, alternatively, an order for interim possession of a jewellery set of identified diamonds.

The court denied the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiff did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against all respondents or a real risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court granted the interim possession order, finding the criteria under Rule 44.01 were met, as the plaintiff demonstrated lawful entitlement to the property and unlawful detention by the respondents.

The jewellery set was ordered to be held by the Toronto Police Service pending criminal matters.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

In a proposed national class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to compel pre-certification discovery from a non-party, Bloomberg LP.

The defendants brought a motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from taking any steps in furtherance of the subpoena without authorization from the Ontario court.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had circumvented Ontario's rules and jurisprudence regarding the discovery of non-parties and pre-certification discovery in class actions.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to control its own process and regulate the examination of non-parties for an Ontario action.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion to stay an action.

The defendants, as moving parties, sought to stay the action, but their motion was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

The parties failed to agree on the scale and quantum of costs.

The court found the plaintiff's pre-motion offer to settle the motion was reasonable and should have been accepted, while the defendants' post-motion offer was not severable and included extraneous terms.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $17,800, calculated on a blended partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants moved to stay an action brought by the plaintiff in Ontario, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or was not the convenient forum, proposing Andorra as the appropriate venue.

The dispute concerned entitlement to €400,000 held in escrow under an Escrow Agreement, which contained a non-exclusive choice of law and forum selection clause in favour of Ontario.

The court found the essential nature of the lawsuit was rooted in the Escrow Agreement, which dictated Ontario law and forum.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to disregard the forum selection clause and that Ontario was the more convenient forum.