Brendan Yiu Bong Wong

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Gaurav Tewari, should be permitted to bring a motion for an interlocutory injunction under Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against multiple defendants, given his outstanding costs orders from previous litigation.

The court found that it would be unfair to allow further motions until the costs orders were satisfied, despite the plaintiff's claims of significant assets.

The motion was not permitted to proceed at this time.

The appellant, a speech language pathologist, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada as statute-barred.

The action sought damages for intentional infliction of economic harm, interference with economic relations, PHIPA retaliation, and conspiracy, stemming from Sun Life's delisting of her services after an audit dispute.

The motion judge found the claim statute-barred under the Limitations Act, rejecting arguments for a rolling limitation period and that the discovery of the claim was contingent on a College investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing with the motion judge's analysis on the limitation period and the appropriateness of summary judgment.

The appellants sought to appeal an order quashing their motion to set aside a Mareva injunction, certificates of pending litigation, and Norwich orders.

The Court of Appeal determined that the quashed order was interlocutory in nature, not final, as it did not finally determine the real matter in dispute—whether fraud was perpetrated—but rather addressed collateral issues pending trial.

The court held that interlocutory orders must be appealed with leave to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted without prejudice to the appellants' right to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Amphenol Canada Corp. obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction and other orders against the defendants.

The defendants (Sundaram, Devappa, Sundev Technologies Inc.) subsequently brought a motion to set aside these orders.

Amphenol responded with a motion to quash or stay the defendants' set aside motion, arguing issue estoppel, collateral attack, and abuse of process, and also sought leave to amend its Statement of Claim to add Radiant Tools Ltd. as a defendant.

The court granted Amphenol's motion to add Radiant Tools Ltd. as a defendant.

The court found that the conditions for issue estoppel were satisfied regarding the strong prima facie case of fraud against the Sundev Defendants, as this issue was determined in a prior continuation motion.

While the court did not find the doctrine of collateral attack engaged, it concluded that the defendants' attempt to re-litigate issues constituted an abuse of process.

Consequently, Amphenol's motions were granted, and the defendants' Set Aside Motion was quashed or stayed.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no valid and enforceable settlement due to a lack of clarity in the offer, insufficient authority of the individual purporting to accept on behalf of corporate plaintiffs, and improper direct communication by the defendants' counsel with a represented party, violating professional conduct rules.

This costs endorsement addresses two applications for costs following a motion concerning a Mareva injunction, Certificate of Pending Litigation, and Norwich Orders.

The Plaintiff, Amphenol Canada Corp., sought costs against Chandra Devappa, Nandakumar Sundaram, and Sundev Technologies Inc. after Devappa unsuccessfully contested the continuation of the Mareva injunction.

MTech Ltd. sought substantial indemnity costs from Amphenol after successfully having the Mareva injunction set aside against it.

The court awarded Amphenol partial indemnity costs of $14,000 against Devappa, finding her contestation unreasonable given a prior settlement offer.

No costs were awarded against Sundaram and Sundev as they did not oppose the continuation motion.

The court awarded MTech partial indemnity costs of $16,000 from Amphenol, rejecting substantial indemnity as Amphenol's conduct in advancing the fraud claim against MTech was not deemed "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous."

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding their right of access to waterfront property through membership in Cedar Ridge Waterfront Park Corporation (CRRC).

The motion judge found a common intention that lot purchasers would have water access through CRRC membership.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the right of access was contractual in nature, not an easement or easement by estoppel.

The court found that the documentation and circumstances were inconsistent with the creation of an easement, including the requirement to assign membership to subsequent purchasers and the absence of typical easement indicia such as metes and bounds descriptions.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to vary a Mareva injunction granted in favour of Trade Capital against The Cash House.

The motion judge allowed Maple Trust to seize funds in a specific account under a writ of seizure and sale.

The appellant argued that a temporary stay should have been granted to allow it to trace stolen funds into the account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if a serious issue regarding tracing could be demonstrated, the balance of convenience favoured Maple Trust, which had acted in good faith in obtaining its judgment and pursuing execution.

The appellant's Mareva injunction gave it no proprietary interest in the funds, and there was no basis for the third party to suffer prejudice.