Ara Basmadjian

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a lower court's decision to permanently stay their underlying action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens and forum selection clauses.

They also sought an order expediting the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed both requests, applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for stays pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court also denied the request to expedite the appeal, finding no urgency.

This motion for directions addresses appeals of rejected claims in a class action settlement concerning cathode ray tubes (CRT) products.

The Claims Administrator had rejected claims, often using generic reasons, for insufficient proof of purchase.

The court clarified the interpretation of the Distribution Protocol, emphasizing that while declarations alone are insufficient"comparable verification" should be accepted.

The court also ruled that the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel do not have the authority to unilaterally amend the appeal process, which is under court control.

The appeals for certain class members were allowed and remitted for reconsideration, with directions for the Claims Administrator to provide fact-specific and instructive grounds for future decisions.

The plaintiff was injured after colliding with an unlit street light pole on a sidewalk.

She initially sued the City of Toronto, believing it owned and maintained the pole.

Years later, she learned the City had sold the street lights to Toronto Hydro.

The plaintiff brought a motion to correct the defendant's name on the basis of misnomer.

The Master found that the 'litigating finger' was clearly pointed at the entity responsible for the pole, and granted the misnomer correction, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, although noting the decision was practically moot as a parallel appeal had already added Toronto Hydro as a defendant.

The plaintiffs sought interim relief by way of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against five properties and an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA), specifically the appointment of an inspector to audit financial information.

The court dismissed the request for a CPL, finding that the plaintiffs had no direct interest in the properties, which were corporate assets, and that a CPL would cause disproportionate harm to the defendants.

However, the court granted the request for an inspector, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and established a prima facie case of oppression based on their termination, inconsistent treatment as an employee versus partner, and denial of financial information.

The court determined that an inspector was necessary to clarify commingled funds and determine the plaintiffs' interests, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs initially.

The defendant, Canadian National Railway Company, brought a motion to consolidate actions involving the plaintiff, Rose Sgambelluri, and two insurance companies.

The plaintiff conceded that the "gateway criteria" for consolidation under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure were met.

The court granted the motion, finding that consolidation would prevent inconsistent outcomes, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and promote judicial economy, with no true prejudice or delay to the plaintiff.

Costs of the motion were fixed against the plaintiff.

The appellant, Toronto Hydro, appealed a Master's decision granting the respondent leave to amend a third-party claim to add Toronto Hydro as a party after the apparent expiry of the limitation period.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle collision at an intersection where the traffic lights were not functioning due to a power outage.

The appellant argued the Master erred in applying the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act and misapprehended evidence regarding the respondent's due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's interpretation of the law and holding that her factual findings on discoverability were owed deference and supported by the evidence.

The plaintiff railway company brought an ex parte motion for an interim injunction to remove protesters blocking its main rail line.

The protesters were acting in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en in British Columbia.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass and tortious interference.

The court concluded the plaintiff suffered irreparable harm due to delayed freight and passenger trains, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction as the protest was on private property.

The interim injunction was granted for 10 days.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend her statement of claim to add a utility company as a defendant after the expiry of the presumptive two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff alleged she walked into a light pole and initially sued the municipality, only later discovering the utility company owned the pole.

The Divisional Court found the Master erred in law by failing to make specific findings on when the plaintiff actually knew or reasonably ought to have known of her claim against the utility company.

The Court set aside the Master's order and granted leave to add the utility company as a defendant, noting that a trial was required to determine the limitations issue.

The defendant Kolesnik sought leave to commence a third-party claim against Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, which argued the limitation period had expired.

The court examined when Kolesnik ought reasonably to have discovered the claim, applying the test from Morrison v. Barzo.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the discovery date of the claim against Toronto Hydro, granting leave for the third-party claim to proceed, with Toronto Hydro permitted to plead its limitation period defence.

Costs were awarded to Kolesnik.

The defendants moved for an order awarding costs after the plaintiff discontinued its action.

The court found that the plaintiff's action was commenced without justification, was speculative, frivolous, and vexatious, and made serious unsubstantiated allegations against both defendants, including breaches of contractual and fiduciary obligations.

The court applied the principles of costs law and factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, concluding that the plaintiff's conduct warranted a substantial indemnity award.

The motion for costs was granted, with specific amounts awarded to each defendant.

The defendant moved under Rules 21.01(1)(a) and 51.06 for a declaration that the plaintiffs had irrevocably elected to affirm a settlement agreement and therefore could not pursue rescission in the alternative.

In a complex commercial dispute arising from the termination of margin facilities and liquidation of hedge fund assets during the 2009 financial crisis, the court held that the factual matrix, discovery record, and alleged misrepresentations were too complicated to resolve on a paper record on the eve of trial.

The court was not satisfied that the pleadings or discovery admissions established the necessary elements of election, nor that a forced election between inconsistent remedies should be imposed at that stage.

The motion was dismissed, leave to amend was granted, and costs of $100,000 inclusive were awarded to the plaintiffs.