Christopher Abel Ribeiro Afonso

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 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, 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, 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 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, 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 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.

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.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiffs to produce unredacted banking records and additional documentation to trace the source of funds.

The plaintiffs had redacted portions of bank statements, asserting irrelevance and privacy, and resisted requests for further documentation.

The court allowed the motion for unredacted bank statements, finding the plaintiffs failed to meet the high threshold for redaction, which requires both clear irrelevance and a "good reason" for non-disclosure (e.g., significant harm or public interest infringement).

However, the court denied the motion for additional documentation to trace the source of funds, as the defendants did not establish its relevance beyond an improper fishing expedition.

The court also addressed the procedure for filing sealed documents, granting a temporary sealing order to allow the plaintiffs to formally apply for a sealing order.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action and dismissing claims against three respondents on the basis that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellants conceded that the motion judge made no error in law but challenged his application of the principles relating to the duty of care to the facts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding his reasons correct and concluding that the appellants had pleaded no reasonable cause of action against the respondents.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's assessment of costs.

The City of Toronto brought a special case motion to determine the scope of contribution and indemnity claims between Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Ltd. and Gonte Construction Limited following a bilateral settlement between Toronto Hydro and the City.

The court addressed three questions: (1) whether Toronto Hydro's third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against Gonte in tort was limited to Gonte's several share of liability under the Negligence Act; (2) whether Gonte could claim contribution and indemnity from the City if Toronto Hydro could claim the full amount against Gonte in tort (this question was agreed upon by the parties); and (3) whether Gonte could claim common law contribution and indemnity from the City if found liable in contract.

The court ruled that Toronto Hydro's tort claim against Gonte is limited to Gonte's several share of liability, but Gonte can pursue a common law claim for contribution and indemnity from the City if found liable in contract, given the developing nature of the law in mixed contract and tort cases.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add her husband as a plaintiff and the third parties as defendants, arguing discoverability of new information after the initial limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding a credibility issue regarding the timing of discoverability that warranted resolution at trial, and that the plaintiff and her husband had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the potential claims against the third parties and the need to add the husband as a plaintiff.