Christopher P. Goldson

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an action under the anti-SLAPP regime (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The defendants, who successfully moved for dismissal, sought full indemnity costs totaling over $148,000.

The plaintiff argued against full indemnity, citing various factors including the nature of the litigation, power imbalances, and procedural delays.

The court, exercising its discretion, found that full indemnity was not appropriate and awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,000 to the individual defendants and $30,000 to Cybermedia, considering the specific circumstances and issues raised by the plaintiff.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action.

The plaintiff, former Executive Chairman of a non-profit organization, sued the defendants over WeChat messages and a published declaration alleging election manipulation, financial opaqueness, and by-law violations.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expressions related to a matter of public interest, the defendants had valid defences including justification and fair comment, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the minimal harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs moved for an order validating service of a notice of libel and slander on the individual defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence that the notice came to the attention of all defendants, particularly two unnamed ones, and that a lawyer's office is not a 'drop box' for service without instructions.

The court also clarified that the onus is on the moving party to prove effective service, not on the responding party to disprove it.

The plaintiff successfully resisted the defendants' motion to set aside default judgment and sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The defendants conceded the plaintiff's entitlement to costs but contested the scale.

The court found no evidence of conduct warranting full indemnity costs, which are reserved for exceptional circumstances.

However, considering the plaintiff's success, the voluminous and complex factual record, and the defendants' conduct in delaying and lengthening the process, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court adjusted the clerk's hourly rate from $180 to $100 and allowed two-thirds of the substantial indemnity fees claimed, along with disbursements.

An appeal concerning jurisdiction to award child support and equalization of net family property following a valid foreign divorce.

The appellant, a Canadian resident, was married to the respondent, who resided in China.

The respondent commenced a divorce application in Ontario seeking spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant subsequently obtained a divorce in China.

The trial judge found that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction to award corollary relief under the Divorce Act despite the foreign divorce.

The Court of Appeal reversed on the Divorce Act issue but upheld jurisdiction under the Family Law Act for child support and equalization.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in 2010 regarding a failed immigration consulting contract.

The defendants argued they were not properly served and that the claim was not a liquidated demand.

The court found that service was properly effected pursuant to a substituted service order and that the claim for a refund of the contract price was a liquidated demand.

Applying the test to set aside a default judgment, the court held that the defendants failed to move promptly after learning of the judgment and that the plaintiff would suffer significant prejudice due to the death of key witnesses.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Ms. Cheng, sought to lift a stay of proceedings in Ontario to pursue claims for child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, Mr. Liu, had previously obtained a divorce in China after initiating proceedings there, which led to the Ontario action being stayed on condition of his cooperation in China.

Mr. Liu breached this condition by providing false financial disclosure to the Chinese court, which subsequently granted the divorce but explicitly declined jurisdiction over economic issues, deferring them to Canada.

The court found that it retained jurisdiction over the corollary relief, distinguishing the precedent of Okmyansky v. Okmyansky.

The decision emphasized that jurisdiction is determined at the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Liu's breach of conditions and fraudulent disclosure, China's explicit declination of jurisdiction, and the doctrine of forum of necessity.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b), 25.06, and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and breach of trust.

The court held that most claims were inadequately pleaded and failed to disclose material facts necessary to establish the alleged causes of action, particularly against the individual defendants as directing minds of corporate entities.

Claims for fraud, misrepresentation, conspiracy, conversion, and unjust enrichment were struck for failure to plead material facts, and allegations supporting piercing the corporate veil were also insufficient.

The only potentially viable claims were breach of contract against one corporate defendant and breach of a written trust agreement regarding certain land.

The entire claim was struck with leave granted to file a further amended pleading limited to those causes of action.

Competing motions were brought to vary a Mareva injunction to permit access to frozen funds for legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $1.5 million from a frozen bank account in their name, while the defendants sought $534,000 from other frozen assets.

The court reviewed the legal test governing access to funds subject to a Mareva injunction and held that the test for defendants seeking release of funds did not apply in the same way when plaintiffs sought access to funds they claimed to own.

The court found the plaintiffs had established a sufficient proprietary interest in the account but exercised discretion to limit access due to credibility concerns and the procedural history of multiple collateral proceedings.

Partial funding was granted to both sides to permit fair participation in the litigation.

Competing motions were brought to vary a Mareva injunction to permit access to frozen funds for legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $1.5 million from a frozen bank account in their name, while the defendants sought $534,000 from other frozen assets.

The court reviewed the legal test governing access to funds subject to a Mareva injunction and held that the test for defendants seeking release of funds did not apply in the same way when plaintiffs sought access to funds they claimed to own.

The court found the plaintiffs had established a sufficient proprietary interest in the account but exercised discretion to limit access due to credibility concerns and the procedural history of multiple collateral proceedings.

Partial funding was granted to both sides to permit fair participation in the litigation.

The defendants moved to remove the plaintiffs' law firm from the record in a commercial landlord-tenant dispute.

The defendants argued the firm previously acted for the defendant landlord on the purchase of the property, that a partner of the firm would be a witness, and that the firm was breaching its duty of loyalty.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the partner was unlikely to have relevant evidence regarding the accounting issues in dispute.

Furthermore, because there was no risk of disclosing confidential information and the firm was not attacking its own prior work or changing sides on a matter central to the previous retainer, the duty of loyalty was not breached.

Following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs of $23,365.28.

The unsuccessful parties argued that costs should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis and limited to $4,500, asserting the claimed time and staffing were excessive.

The court applied the principles governing costs awards and considered the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including duplication of effort and prior costs already determined for earlier related motions.

While recognizing the successful party’s entitlement to costs and the importance of the summary judgment motion, the court found the claimed amount excessive and reduced it.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $9,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for a one-quarter share of the assets of a family business operated in China.

The defendants argued there was no evidence or corporate documentation supporting the plaintiff's legal entitlement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the business, the existence of an oral agreement among family members, and the defendants' failure to provide adequate documentary disclosure.