Carly Cohen

The defendant brought a motion to permanently or temporarily stay the Ontario action in favour of proceedings in Florida.

The plaintiff, a Florida mortgage lender, commenced the Ontario action to enforce a personal guarantee signed by the defendant in Toronto.

The defendant argued that Florida was the more appropriate forum due to ongoing foreclosure and deficiency proceedings against his company in Florida, as well as a separate action he commenced there alleging fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant failed to establish that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the key witnesses and the defendant were in Ontario, and the guarantee was signed in Ontario.

The court also declined to grant a temporary stay, noting that the Florida proceedings involved different parties and subject matter.

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant for a loan guarantee.

The defendant sought to stay the action on the basis of *forum non conveniens*, arguing a Florida proceeding was more appropriate.

Due to COVID-19 disruptions, a case conference was held to establish a timetable for the defendant's motion.

The parties disagreed on the hearing format and the defendant's obligation to file a Statement of Defence.

The court ordered the defendant to deliver a Statement of Defence and Motion Record by June 19, 2020, and set a detailed schedule for the motion, deferring the decision on whether the hearing would be oral or written.

The appellant hotel owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent hotel manager an early termination fee of $1,026,652.44 plus costs.

The owner had terminated a 10-year hotel management agreement after approximately 10 months, claiming cause based on alleged breaches by the manager.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

The court rejected the owner's arguments regarding alleged breaches concerning an interim manager's work visa status, the appointment of an unqualified general manager, the manager's failure to timely terminate the general manager, and alleged budget preparation violations.

The court found that the owner had approved the general manager's hiring, that the manager had cured the termination issue within the required 30-day period, and that the owner could not rely on its own refusal to approve the annual plan as grounds for termination for cause.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, seeking additional security for the discovery stage and for the period from discoveries to trial.

Previously, $45,000 in security had been ordered, with the court finding that 1636833 Ontario Inc. (833) had insufficient assets.

On this motion, the plaintiffs provided new, more comprehensive evidence of 833's financial condition, including significant bank balances, investment accounts, and revenue from an active business relationship.

The court found that 833 now demonstrated sufficient liquid and unencumbered assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award, dismissing the defendants' motions for further security for costs.

The decision reiterated the limits of speculative inquiries into a company's future financial prospects on such motions.

The plaintiff, Crescent Hotels, sought costs of a successful summary judgment motion where it was awarded over $1 million in damages.

Having served a Rule 49 offer to settle for less than the awarded amount, the plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $145,899.42.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive and proposed $85,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance and complexity of the matter, and counsel's experience and efficiency.

The court found the plaintiff's costs fair, reasonable, and proportionate, declining to use the 2005 Costs Grid, and awarded the full amount sought.

The plaintiff, Crescent Hotels and Resorts Canada Company, brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant owner for an early termination fee and outstanding expenses under a Hotel Management Agreement (HMA).

The owner alleged termination for cause due to various acts of mismanagement and breaches by the plaintiff.

The court found no evidentiary support for the owner's allegations of cause and determined that the owner failed to provide proper notice of any alleged defaults as required by the HMA.

Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the early termination fee and all outstanding expenses, totaling $1,026,652.44 plus pre-judgment interest and costs.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs (as defendants by counterclaim) brought a cross-motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs by counterclaim.

The court granted the Langlois defendants' motion against the corporate plaintiffs, finding good reason to believe they had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion by a self-represented lawyer defendant, finding no evidence of opportunity cost to justify an award of security for costs in his favour.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion, as the counterclaim was largely equivalent to a defence to the main action.