Ashley Thomassen

The defendants were previously found in civil contempt for breaching a court order that permanently enjoined them from infringing the plaintiffs' copyrights and trademarks by streaming content over Shava TV.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the court noted that the defendants had substantially ceased the offending conduct and assigned the Shava TV rights to the plaintiffs.

The court declined to impose the jail sentences sought by the plaintiffs, finding that a conditional discharge subject to two years less a day of probation would better achieve the coercive purpose of civil contempt.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $484,305.

The plaintiffs sought to hold the defendants, Imran and Naeem Butt, in contempt of a prior judgment from Justice Pattillo dated August 1, 2018, which recognized and enforced a U.S. judgment prohibiting copyright and trademark infringement related to pirated television channels sold under the "ShavaTV" brand.

The defendants conceded some contempt but disputed its extent.

The court found the defendants in broad contempt, rejecting their claim that the business was transferred to a third party in Pakistan, Rizwan Ahmed Shams.

The court found the alleged transfer implausible due to lack of documentation, continued use of the defendants' PayPal accounts for business and personal expenses, and Mr. Shams' refusal to be cross-examined.

The court also confirmed jurisdiction over Naeem Butt, who resided in Germany, due to the real and substantial connection with Ontario, including sales to Ontario purchasers and use of a Canadian hosting company.

The United Mexican States appealed a Superior Court of Justice decision that affirmed an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction in a claim brought by Burr et al. under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The arbitral tribunal had bifurcated proceedings into jurisdiction and merits phases, ruling it had jurisdiction over most claims.

Mexico's application to the Superior Court to set aside this jurisdictional ruling was dismissed.

Burr et al. moved to quash Mexico's appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, holding that the arbitral tribunal's ruling was a preliminary question of jurisdiction under Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

This article stipulates that a Superior Court's decision on such a preliminary jurisdictional ruling is 'subject to no appeal'.

The Court found that Mexico had not substantively pursued arguments under Article 34, which would permit an appeal, before the application judge.

The applicants, children of the deceased, sought declarations of a constructive trust over the survivor's assets based on a mutual wills agreement, alleging breach due to a $200,000 gift and failure to provide information.

The court found that a constructive trust only arises upon breach of the mutual wills agreement, not automatically upon the first testator's death, particularly when the survivor receives assets absolutely.

It was determined that the survivor's gift was not substantial enough to defeat the agreement, nor was her failure to provide information a breach, as the applicants were not beneficiaries under the deceased's will.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellants failed to appear at the appeal hearing and did not comply with the court's previous endorsement directing specific steps to be taken.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $21,234.33, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

An appeal from a Superior Court judgment dated August 1, 2018.

The appellants failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for April 2, 2019.

One appellant declared bankruptcy, though the stay was lifted as it relates to the appeal.

The other appellant left the jurisdiction.

The court scheduled the appeal for May 16, 2019, allowing the respondents to move to dismiss for non-compliance with procedural orders.

The appellants were warned that any adjournment request without prior conference call would likely fail.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment to recognize and enforce a U.S. default judgment in Ontario against the defendants for copyright and trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The defendants challenged the U.S. court's jurisdiction, alleged fraud, and claimed a denial of natural justice due to improper service.

The Ontario Superior Court found that the U.S. court properly exercised jurisdiction based on a 'real and substantial connection' to Virginia, dismissed the fraud defense, and confirmed proper service.

The court granted summary judgment, enforcing both the monetary damages and the permanent injunction from the U.S. judgment.