Christopher Abel Ribeiro Afonso

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendants' commencement of a competing action in Toronto, while the plaintiffs' action was pending in Kenora, was an abuse of process.

In the alternative, the plaintiffs sought to transfer the Toronto action to Kenora and consolidate the proceedings.

The court found no abuse of process but determined that Kenora was the proper venue, as the disputed property was located there and Toronto had no rational connection to the matter.

The court ordered the Toronto action transferred to Kenora and consolidated with the Kenora action.

A corporate purchaser of titanium and ferro metals sued a corporate officer personally for fraudulent misrepresentation after paying for multiple shipments that were never delivered.

The court found that by sending bills of lading, booking notices, packing lists, and related documents, the defendant represented that product had departed the factory or was ready for immediate shipment upon payment, and that those representations were false for the relevant shipments.

The court held that the defendant acted recklessly, not merely carelessly, because he was copied on extensive communications showing chronic shipping failures and nevertheless continued demanding payment while closing his eyes to obvious problems.

Reliance was established only for the later shipments after the purchaser's understanding of the shipping documents was clarified.

Liability was found, but damages, interest, and costs were left for further submissions.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to comply with multiple costs orders totaling $61,586.96.

The plaintiff argued he was entitled to a hearing before a panel of the Divisional Court to clarify their order before paying costs.

The court rejected this argument, finding no process exists for an explanatory attendance after an order is settled, the Divisional Court had already refused further attendance, the order was clear on its face, and the plaintiff's failure to pay costs remained unexplained.

The motion was granted with costs awarded to the defendants.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.

The appellant, a de-designated firearms instructor, appealed a costs order from a motion that struck and stayed parts of his second action (2022 Action) as duplicative of an earlier action (2018 Action).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the cumulative costs award fell below the $50,000 threshold specified in the Courts of Justice Act, which applies when the costs order itself is the subject of the appeal.

The appellant, a registered mutual fund salesperson, appealed a decision finding he breached his duty to deal fairly, honestly, and in good faith with a vulnerable client by accepting power of attorney and being named sole beneficiary of her estate.

He also appealed the resulting sanctions, including a permanent ban and a $500,000 administrative penalty.

The respondent cross-appealed the Tribunal's refusal to order disgorgement of the testamentary benefit.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no errors in the Tribunal's jurisdiction, factual findings, or penalty assessments.

The plaintiff commenced two actions (in 2018 and 2022) against the Crown and the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario containing overlapping allegations regarding the suspension of his firearms instructor license.

The defendants brought motions to strike or stay the 2022 Action.

The court struck the 2022 Action against the Crown for failure to provide statutory notice, struck the claims based on 2017 and 2018 events as statute-barred, and stayed the remaining duplicative claims as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the 2018 Action to incorporate the claims from the 2022 Action.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondent mutual fund sales representative acted unfairly, dishonestly, and in bad faith towards a vulnerable client by failing to manage conflicts of interest, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The respondent had accepted appointments as attorney for property and alternate executor, and was named sole beneficiary of the client's estate, without immediately reporting these conflicts to his employer.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market bans, including a director and officer ban, and an administrative penalty of $500,000.

The Tribunal declined to order disgorgement of the estate's value, finding no causal connection between the breach and the testamentary gift.

Costs of $85,000 were awarded to Staff.

The appellant, Black & McDonald Limited, appealed two orders staying their proceedings in Ontario in favour of British Columbia as the more convenient forum.

The first action was against Eiffage Innovative Canada Inc. and individuals for breach of contract and breach of trust related to a construction subcontract.

The second was against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company under a payment bond.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in interpreting an "exclusive jurisdiction" clause in the prime contract as applicable to the subcontract, and that the forum non conveniens factors did not clearly favour British Columbia, thus the high standard to displace the plaintiff's chosen jurisdiction was not met for the Eiffage action.

For the Liberty Mutual action, the Court found the forum selection clause in the payment bond ambiguous and resolved it against Liberty Mutual, also noting the public policy against multiple proceedings risking inconsistent findings.

The appeals were allowed, and the actions were permitted to proceed in Ontario.

Intact Insurance brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party defendant in an action arising from alleged water damage caused by its insured, Lucas Roofing.

Intact had previously defended the insured under a reservation of rights but denied coverage after the insured repeatedly failed to cooperate with the investigation and discovery process.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing Intact would take a position adverse to its insured.

The court granted the motion, finding that Intact had a clear interest in the outcome under s. 132(1) of the Insurance Act and that no true prejudice would result to the existing parties.

Intact, an insurer, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action to recover $2.9 million in excess remediation payments for an environmental spill from other parties (pollutant owners/controllers and their insurer).

Intact sought recovery under s. 99(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Intact, as a voluntary payor beyond its policy obligations and without direct harm to its own property, did not qualify for compensation under s. 99(2)(a) of the EPA.

Furthermore, the unjust enrichment claim failed because the primary benefit of the payments accrued to Intact's own insured, and the payments were made voluntarily with knowledge of the respondents' position.

The respondent, a mutual fund dealing representative, managed the investments of an elderly, vulnerable client who was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Shortly before her death, the client executed a will and powers of attorney naming the respondent as her power of attorney for property and personal care, alternate executor, and sole beneficiary of her estate.

The respondent failed to report these appointments and the testamentary gift to his dealer firm, contrary to MFDA Rules and the firm's policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the respondent breached MFDA Rules and his firm's policies, and that his failure to address these conflicts of interest constituted a breach of his statutory obligation under OSC Rule 31-505 to deal with his client fairly, honestly, and in good faith.

The defendants brought a motion to stay two actions commenced in Ontario, arguing that British Columbia was the more appropriate forum based on contractual choice of law and jurisdiction clauses related to a construction project.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to compel arbitration.

The court granted the defendants' motion to stay, finding that despite Ontario having jurisdiction simpliciter, British Columbia was the forum conveniens due to the clear contractual terms and the location where the factual matters arose.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to compel arbitration was dismissed, with the court noting that the arbitrator should determine their own jurisdiction in the first instance.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.

The defendants, Toronto Hydro and the City of Toronto, sought leave to issue third-party claims against the plaintiffs (a building owner and two tenants) and various former owners and property managers for contribution and indemnity following a fire in a hydro vault.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that covenants to insure in their leases shielded them from liability to each other, rendering the third-party claims legally untenable under the Supreme Court's decisions in T. Eaton Co. and Giffels.

The court granted leave in part, allowing claims against parties in capacities not shielded by the insurance covenants (e.g., former owners, property managers), but dismissed the motions regarding claims against the landlord and tenant in their capacities governed by the leases.

The court also rejected the argument that covenants to insure should be treated as exclusion clauses subject to public policy exceptions.

The defendants, Altus Group Limited and Jason White, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff, Melvyn D. Eisen (the Trustee), lacked standing to represent 13 investors in a syndicated mortgage transaction.

The Trustee brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration of standing or, alternatively, to add or substitute the Investor Beneficiaries as plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the defendants' summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the Trustee's standing and the timing of detrimental reliance.

The court also denied the Trustee leave to bring his cross-motion, concluding that adding or substituting parties at this late stage, after the action was set down for trial, was not warranted given the deliberate tactical choice made by the Trustee and the potential for further delays and prejudice to the defendants.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the September 15, 2020 order of Justice E.M. Morgan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The plaintiffs, investors in syndicated mortgages, brought a motion to amend their Statement of Claim to explicitly plead fraud and conspiracy against the defendant appraisers.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they introduced new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that while the original pleading was minimalist, the material facts of intentionality and collusion were already present, meaning the amendments merely embellished existing claims rather than introducing new, time-barred ones.

The plaintiffs were also permitted to discontinue their claims against several other defendants without costs.

The appellant, Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision that dismissed its motion to dismiss or stay an action based on lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

The action was brought by the respondents (plaintiffs) following a tragic motor scooter accident in Thailand that resulted in the death of one sister and serious injury to another, who had travelled there through the appellant's "Teach in Thailand" program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding of a real and substantial connection to Ontario, particularly regarding claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligence committed in Ontario, and affirmed the application of the "good arguable case" test.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, the successful plaintiffs sought costs of $51,474.50 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant did not contest entitlement but disputed the quantum, arguing the hourly rates were high and time was spent on unnecessary steps.

The court found the hourly rates reasonable and declined to conduct a detailed post-mortem of the litigation steps.

Noting the amount sought was comparable to what the defendant would have claimed, the court awarded the plaintiffs costs in the requested amount of $51,474.50.

The defendant, Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., brought a motion to dismiss or stay an action commenced by the plaintiffs (Nora Vahle, Marija Vahle's estate, and her parents) in Ontario.

The plaintiffs sued for damages arising from negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of trust after Nora and Marija were involved in a fatal motor scooter accident in Thailand while participating in the defendant's "Teach in Thailand" program.

The motion challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction simpliciter and argued that Ontario was not the convenient forum (forum non conveniens).

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the tort of negligent misrepresentation being committed where representations were received and relied upon (Ontario), and the defendant carrying on business in Ontario through e-commerce and placing clients in Ontario.

The presumption of jurisdiction was not rebutted.

The court also determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Thailand was clearly a more appropriate forum, considering factors such as the parties' location in Canada, the contract's Canadian law clause, and potential juridical disadvantage for the plaintiffs in Thailand.

The motion was dismissed.