Christopher Wayne Phillip 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 respondents brought a motion to set aside an order granted to the applicant during a telephone case conference that the respondents failed to attend.

The underlying dispute involved a commercial sublease and a $350,000 payment.

The court applied the factors under Rule 38.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the respondents failed to attend due to insufficient notice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the respondents moved forthwith to set aside the order and had an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted and the order was set aside.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent lawyer $19,215.40 in unpaid legal fees.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the Deputy Judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment when the appellant's representative arrived late to the trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge had wide discretion and made no reviewable error, given the history of prior adjournments and the appellant's failure to properly request an adjournment at the outset of the trial.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order releasing $75,000 from funds frozen under a Mareva injunction to allow the defendants to pay legal fees.

The plaintiffs argued the order conflicted with a prior decision dismissing the defendants' motion to vary the injunction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision as the factual circumstances had changed, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the discretionary order.

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.

Following a finding of liability that the respondents contravened the Human Rights Code by posting a job advertisement for a server stating 'female only', a hearing was held to determine the appropriate remedy.

The applicant sought $25,000 in monetary compensation and systemic orders.

The Tribunal declined to award monetary compensation, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence of the impact of the advertisement itself and questioning whether he was a bona fide job applicant.

The Tribunal also declined to order systemic remedies, noting the respondents had already implemented human rights policies and training.

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.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex after the respondents posted a Kijiji advertisement seeking a 'female only' server for their fast-food restaurant.

The applicant claimed he was denied consideration for the position because he is male.

The Tribunal found that while the job advertisement itself was discriminatory and violated sections 5 and 23(1) of the Human Rights Code, the applicant failed to establish that he was actually denied consideration for the job because of his gender.

The Tribunal noted the respondents had already hired a male employee before the applicant applied, and found the applicant's job application was not bona fide.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedy for the discriminatory ad to be determined subsequently.

The defendants moved to vacate a prior judgment and a notice of garnishment, arguing that the underlying debt had been fully satisfied pursuant to a subsequent settlement agreement.

The plaintiffs opposed and cross-moved to add the garnishees as defendants, alleging fraudulent preference.

The court found that the parties had entered into a valid settlement agreement and that the defendants had paid the settlement amount in full.

Consequently, the court vacated the judgments and the notice of garnishment, and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

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.

Following an interlocutory motion concerning amendments to pleadings and document production, the court addressed costs.

The moving party had obtained leave to amend its statement of claim and partial relief for additional document production but was unsuccessful on a privilege issue that dominated the motion.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs must be fair and reasonable in light of partial success and the relative importance of the issues.

The responding parties were found to have been successful on the principal issue argued, though their claimed costs and request for substantial indemnity were excessive.

Partial indemnity costs of $2,500 were awarded against the moving party, with no costs order involving another responding party who played only a minor role.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their amended statement of claim to add a new defendant and to compel further production of documents from several defendants.

The court granted leave to amend and ordered the corporate defendants to produce bank statements, cancelled cheques, and related financial records relevant to the impugned real estate transactions.

However, the plaintiffs’ request for production of documents contained in the real estate lawyer’s files was refused on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that privilege belongs to the clients and is not waived merely because another party places its state of mind in issue.

The fraud exception to privilege was not engaged because a prima facie case of fraud had not yet been established.

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.