Chenyang Li

The plaintiff and defendant, former romantic partners, jointly agreed to purchase a pre-construction home.

The plaintiff advanced the defendant's share of the deposit funds ($65,000) when the defendant's expected funds from a matrimonial settlement did not materialize.

The relationship ended, and the property purchase failed, resulting in the forfeiture of the entire $130,000 deposit.

The plaintiff sued for repayment of the $65,000, arguing it was a loan.

The defendant claimed it was a gift or part of an oral agreement for the plaintiff to assume sole responsibility for the purchase.

The court found that the funds were a loan, not a gift or part of a collateral oral agreement, and ordered the defendant to repay the plaintiff $65,000.

Claims for punitive damages by both parties were dismissed.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

The plaintiff commenced an action regarding a stream of royalty payments from a mine in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim.

In response, the plaintiff delivered an amended statement of claim.

The defendants moved to declare the amended claim a nullity, arguing it could not be amended without leave in the face of a motion to strike.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend.

The court held that while leave is required to amend a claim in the face of a motion to strike, the motion for leave should be heard first.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not time-barred, did not withdraw admissions, and were sufficiently particularized.

Export Development Canada (EDC) brought a motion to temporarily stay the respondent's application pending the resolution of a related action.

The respondent, a trade financing lender, sought a declaration regarding coverage under an export credit insurance policy issued by EDC.

EDC argued that the validity of a power of attorney, which was being challenged in the related action, needed to be determined first.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that EDC had delayed in taking its position, the related action was proceeding slowly, and a stay would cause significant prejudice to the respondent.

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a lower court's decision to permanently stay their underlying action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens and forum selection clauses.

They also sought an order expediting the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed both requests, applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for stays pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court also denied the request to expedite the appeal, finding no urgency.

The Plaintiffs (UDG) sought an anti-suit injunction to halt proceedings against them in Dubai and Singapore concerning an alleged outstanding debt and guarantees.

The Defendants (TAP) cross-moved to dismiss or stay the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, citing forum selection clauses.

The court denied the anti-suit injunction, finding UDG failed to meet the Amchem test, particularly by not pursuing stays in the foreign jurisdictions.

The court also found Ontario was not the natural forum, given the parties' residences, witness locations, and applicable foreign laws.

The Plaintiffs' Ontario action was permanently stayed.

The appellant, a former bank executive, entered into a cash-settled forward contract with a securities dealer shortly before accessing a credit facility secured by the same shares underlying the forward contract.

The appellant characterized losses from the forward contract as income losses on the basis that the contract was speculative, while the Minister reassessed and characterized them as capital losses on the basis that the contract was a hedge of capital shares.

The majority held that the characterization of a derivative contract turns on its purpose, ascertained objectively through linkage analysis, and that the forward contract's nearly perfect neutralization of price fluctuations in the underlying shares, considered alongside the loan and pledge agreements, demonstrated the requisite linkage to constitute a hedge.

The dissent would have restored the trial judge's findings of fact, holding that intent — assessed through both subjective statements and objective manifestations — is necessary to find a hedge, and that the credit facility and securities pledge agreement entered into with a separate entity were irrelevant to the characterization of the forward contract.

Appeal dismissed, Côté J. dissenting.

The plaintiff, Thanh Nguyen, brought an action against multiple defendants, including Toronto Dominion Bank (TDB), Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG), and Thien P. Dam (a lawyer), alleging negligence related to the cashing of a Canada Savings Bond, payment of a lottery prize, and transfer of property, respectively.

TDB, OLG, and Ms. Dam brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were statute-barred by the limitation period and that no duty of care was owed by these defendants to the plaintiff.

The court also rejected the defendants' abuse of process argument but found no genuine issue requiring a trial for the negligence claims.

This endorsement fixes the quantum of costs following a prior decision where WCL Capital Group Inc.'s cross-motion was dismissed and Google LLC's motion to permanently stay WCL's action was granted.

WCL was ordered to pay costs to Google and Amex Bank of Canada on a partial indemnity basis.

The court assessed the cost outlines, considering factors under Rule 57.01(1), including complexity, importance, and proportionality.

It found Google's claimed hourly rates and total hours excessive, noting duplication with Amex's submissions and disproportionality to the amount in issue.

The court fixed Amex's all-inclusive costs at $18,000 and Google's all-inclusive costs at $30,000.

The plaintiff sued the defendant over disputed online advertising charges billed to its credit card.

The defendant moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in its terms of service requiring disputes to be litigated in California.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to add the credit card company as a defendant and amend its claim.

The court dismissed the motion to add the credit card company, finding the claim premature as the plaintiff must first prove its claim against the defendant.

The court granted the defendant's motion to stay the action, holding that the forum selection clause was valid, enforceable, and not unconscionable, and that the plaintiff failed to show strong cause to avoid it.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered several motions.

The Tribunal granted requests for party, participant, and presenter status, and granted the Appellant's consent motions for a short adjournment and to allow two expert witnesses to testify by videoconference.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's request for a lengthier adjournment to gather additional evidence, finding it would jeopardize the statutory six-month deadline without meeting the necessity test.

The Tribunal also modified the Appellant's proposed issues list to clarify that the appeal is limited to concerns about contamination from substances related to the radionuclide decay chain, rather than general heavy metal contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the North Kent Wind 1 Project.

The Tribunal granted participant, presenter, and party status to various individuals and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's requests for an extension to serve disclosure, to have two witnesses testify by videoconference, and for a short adjournment of the hearing start date.

The scope of the appeal was defined to include both serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.