Brendan Fitzpatrick Morrison

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling an independent medical examinations business to a competitor.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant breached a contractual duty of good faith by failing to negotiate a sale with them and by not offering a right to match the competitor's offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the defendant had fulfilled its limited obligation to offer a first right of negotiation and was not required to provide a right to match.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The appellants made a last-minute request to adjourn their appeal in order to retain new counsel.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment with considerable reluctance, viewing it as a significant indulgence.

The appeal was rescheduled peremptorily, and the appellants were ordered to pay $1,000 in costs thrown away.

The court also noted that corporate appellants require leave to act in person under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

On a motion for a stay pending leave applications to the Supreme Court of Canada, the moving parties sought to suspend an order holding that Ontario had jurisdiction over an action to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment of approximately $9.51 billion.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test as modified for stays pending leave applications, requiring consideration not only of a serious issue but also of the merit and public importance requirements under s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act.

The court found serious questions concerning recognition and enforcement jurisdiction, enforcement against a non-party to the foreign judgment, and the possible role of corporate veil-piercing, all of which met the public importance threshold.

Although irreparable harm was shown only weakly, the balance of convenience and interests of justice favoured a temporary pause pending the Supreme Court of Canada’s leave determinations.

The motions were granted and the parties bore their own costs.

The appellants, indigenous Ecuadorian villagers, obtained a multi-billion dollar judgment in Ecuador against the respondent corporation for environmental pollution.

They brought an action in Ontario to recognize and enforce the judgment against the corporation and its Canadian subsidiary.

The motion judge found that Ontario had jurisdiction but stayed the action on his own initiative, finding the corporation had no assets in Ontario and the corporate veil of the subsidiary could not be pierced.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the stay, holding that the motion judge erred in granting an unrequested discretionary stay and prematurely deciding the merits of the enforcement action.

The Court dismissed the respondents' cross-appeal, confirming that a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the litigation and Ontario is not required to establish jurisdiction for an action to enforce a foreign judgment.

The appellant commenced an action against the respondents for default in payment of fees.

One of the respondents successfully moved to stay the action under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, with the motion judge applying the competence-competence principle to defer the jurisdictional issue to the arbitrator.

The appellant appealed the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the competence-competence principle applies to the Arbitration Act, 1991, and that s. 7(6) of the Act bars an appeal from a decision granting a stay on the basis that the arbitrator should determine their own jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order regarding the ownership of assets.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion, based on pleadings, correspondence, and subsequent conduct, that the parties intended to hold the assets 50% for each other regardless of legal ownership.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $11,000.

Following a prior decision staying the action on terms, the court determined the issue of costs arising from interlocutory motions on the Commercial List concerning enforcement of a foreign judgment and jurisdiction over the defendants.

The moving party defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs after obtaining a stay.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principle, as well as appellate guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than a full indemnity of actual expenses.

Although the defendants obtained a stay, the court held that the substantive success on the motion was mixed, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the jurisdiction issue while failing on the asset‑exigibility argument.

Given the mixed success and the novelty of the jurisdiction and service ex juris issues, the court ordered that no costs be payable by any party.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to stay a civil action on the basis that the dispute was subject to an arbitration agreement under a broker/agent agreement.

The plaintiff argued it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, having signed only a later addendum for limited purposes.

The court applied the principle that where it is arguable a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement, the matter should be referred to arbitration and the arbitral tribunal should determine jurisdiction.

The court found it was arguable that the plaintiff had become a party to the underlying agreement and its arbitration clause through the addendum and its own pleadings alleging breach of that agreement.

The action against the moving defendant was therefore stayed in favour of arbitration.