2 total
Motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation dismissed as damages were an adequate remedy.
The plaintiff, a land developer, brought a motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) over one of the defendant's properties, 5318 Stouffville Road, based on a right of first refusal (ROFR) in a development management agreement.
The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the ROFR had terminated, was void for vagueness, or was not triggered as the property was part of a larger package.
The court found that while the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding the ROFR, it failed to demonstrate the uniqueness of the land or that damages would be an inadequate remedy.
Considering the defendant's advanced age and reliance on the property for retirement, the court concluded that the harm to the defendant from a CPL outweighed the harm to the plaintiff, whose losses could be compensated by damages.
The motion for leave to issue a CPL was dismissed.
Defamation action permanently stayed as an abuse of process after parallel Korean action was dismissed.
The plaintiff commenced a defamation action in Ontario in 2010 against the defendants.
In 2011, the plaintiff commenced a parallel action in Korea for the same defamation claims.
The Korean action was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to comply with an order to post security for costs.
The defendants brought a motion in Ontario to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process and forum non conveniens.
The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's attempt to continue the Ontario action after his Korean action was dismissed on the merits constituted an abuse of process.
The action was permanently stayed and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.
