Chloe A. Snider

The applicant, Guy Gissin, as Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of Israeli court judgments against the respondents for over 71 million NIS.

The respondents opposed, arguing recognition would be contrary to public policy and an abuse of process, including claims of double recovery and prior Canadian decisions on related facts.

The court found the Israeli judgments final, for a definite sum, and from a court of competent jurisdiction, and held that none of the narrow defences to enforcement (fraud, denial of natural justice, or public policy) applied.

The court rejected the double recovery argument, finding no evidence of over-recovery, and held that prior Canadian proceedings did not address or preclude the Israeli claims.

The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.

The court denied the respondents' motion for leave under Rule 39 to deliver an expert report on Israeli law in a recognition and enforcement application.

The decision reviews the procedural history, the applicable test for leave under Rule 39.02(2), and finds that the respondents failed to satisfy any of the criteria for leave.

The court held that the expert report was not relevant, did not respond to a matter raised on cross-examination, would cause non-compensable prejudice, and was not adequately explained as to its late delivery.

The application was adjourned to March 27, 2025, and directions were given for the delivery of amended factums.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an application by the applicant to set aside an arbitral award.

The core dispute revolved around whether a forum selection clause in an asset purchase agreement, which designated New York courts, applied to the application to set aside the award, or if Ontario's International Commercial Arbitration Act and the Model Law governed due to the arbitration's "place" being Toronto.

The court found that the arbitration procedure was subject to an exception in the forum selection clause and that Toronto was the agreed or deemed "place" of arbitration.

Consequently, Ontario law and jurisdiction applied for setting aside the award.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The appellant purchased a painting purportedly by renowned Anishinaabe artist Norval Morrisseau for $20,000, accompanied by a provenance statement.

After the Art Gallery of Ontario indicated the painting was likely a fake, the appellant sued for return of the purchase price, lost investment returns, and punitive damages.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the authenticity of the painting remained uncertain.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by rejecting expert evidence based on his own personal research not in evidence, and by misapprehending the contract's terms regarding the provenance statement.

The court awarded damages for breach of contract and the Sale of Goods Act, plus punitive damages.

The applicants sought to enforce a Chinese arbitral award of approximately $10 million CAD against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing she did not receive proper notice of the arbitration and that the arbitration was not 'international' under the Model Law.

The court found that the respondent was properly served in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules and that the arbitration was international because the respondent habitually resided in Canada when the arbitration agreement was made.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages arising from a municipal tendering process and termination of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The trial judge found that while the respondent Town breached its tendering process by accepting a non-compliant bid, the appellants failed to demonstrate they would have been awarded the contract.

The appellants did not meet their burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the contract would have been awarded to them, as the trial judge found it more probable the Town would have re-tendered.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it was open to the Town to reject all bids and re-tender with different specifications.

The agreement of purchase and sale was also properly terminated in good faith for legitimate business reasons.

This costs endorsement follows a summary judgment decision where HSBC Bank Canada (the Bank) successfully dismissed Kari Holdings Inc.'s (Kari) action.

The Bank sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, arguing for substantial indemnity post-settlement offer.

Kari opposed, citing novel legal issues and undue hardship to its shareholders, or proposed a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court found the Bank was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting Kari's arguments regarding novelty and shareholder hardship.

The court awarded the Bank $100,000, inclusive, payable within 30 days, considering the complexity, resources expended, and the seriousness of the allegations.

Kari Holdings Inc., a secured creditor, brought a summary judgment motion against HSBC Bank Canada, alleging that HSBC improperly granted overdraft protection to their mutual debtor, C.I.F. Furniture Limited (CIF), and repaid itself using collateral subject to Kari's prior security interest.

Kari sought a declaration of priority and payment of $467,455 for the alleged overdrafts and $57,260 for credit card debt.

HSBC brought a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing Kari's action.

The court dismissed Kari's motion and granted HSBC's cross-motion, finding that HSBC did not extend credit by way of overdraft and, alternatively, that CIF's repayments were made in the ordinary course of business, which was permitted under Kari's general security agreement.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of applications by Belokon, Entes, Sistem, and Stans (the "Applicants") to recognize and enforce arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic (the "Republic"), and to declare an exigible ownership interest of the Republic in Centerra Gold Inc. shares held by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC.

The Republic and Kyrgyzaltyn (the "Respondents") sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting claims for full or substantial indemnity.

It also determined that costs should be payable on a several, not joint and several, basis due to the unrelated nature of the Applicants and the court-directed common issue hearing.

The court limited the costs award to the common issue hearing, excluding prior jurisdiction motions or general recognition application costs, and considered previous compensation for materials.

The applicants sought a declaration that the Kyrgyz Republic held an exigible ownership interest in shares of Centerra Gold Inc. registered in the name of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, to enforce arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Agreement on New Terms (ANT) unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn JSC as the beneficial owner of the shares, not the Republic.

The court rejected arguments based on contract interpretation under New York law and trust principles under Canadian law, emphasizing the separate legal personality of the subsidiary and the lack of evidence for an ownership interest or trust.

The plaintiffs sued the Town of Orangeville for breach of contract related to a biosolids disposal tender and an agreement of purchase and sale for a storage facility.

The court found the Town breached "Contract A" by accepting a non-compliant tender bid from a third party (Entec) but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for lost profits (Contract B) because they failed to prove they would have been awarded the contract.

The court also found the Town validly exercised a termination clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages related to the property sale.

The Town's counterclaim for the return of the deposit was granted.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order compelling them to answer questions during an examination in aid of execution.

The questions related to the plaintiffs' financial affairs, including the Marhaban Trust and proceeds from a quota sale, and the business affairs of non-parties.

The appeal argued that there was insufficient evidence to link the plaintiffs to the non-parties' property and that the Master's reasons were inadequate.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding sufficient evidence of a connection between the plaintiffs and the Marhaban Trust and other associated companies, and that the Master's reasons were adequate.

A minor amendment was made to the scope of one question.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order striking out an affidavit filed in opposition to an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award.

The motion judge had struck the affidavit on the basis that it was clearly irrelevant and scandalous.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on matters of principle and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The Burnbrae defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against them.

The plaintiffs, who were competitors in the egg industry, alleged that Burnbrae conspired with others to drive them out of business by supplying deficient eggs, misusing confidential information, and interfering with contractual relations.

Applying the new summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court found no evidence to support the plaintiffs' sweeping allegations against Burnbrae.

The court concluded that Burnbrae's actions were legitimate competitive behavior and dismissed the action against the Burnbrae defendants.