Christopher Wayne Phillip Goldson

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

The action concerned entitlement to the assets of a Chinese company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction because the personal defendants resided and were served in Ontario, and had attorned to the jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence and taking other steps in the action.

The issue of forum non conveniens was deemed irrelevant.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence and counterclaim for persistently failing to satisfy undertakings given on an examination for discovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's discretionary order was entitled to deference and was supported by the record, which showed the appellant failed to fully answer undertakings despite four court-ordered timetables in a case involving allegations of fraud.

Following a motion concerning jurisdiction, the successful party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,178.02, alleging misconduct by the opposing parties and excessive motion preparation requirements.

The responding parties argued that costs should be limited to the jurisdiction issue and capped at a substantially lower amount.

Applying the principles governing costs and the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that substantial indemnity was not justified and that the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The court fixed costs at a reduced amount it considered fair and reasonable for an unsuccessful party to have expected to pay.

The defendants brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court over a dispute concerning alleged misappropriation of assets from a family business operating in China.

The plaintiff alleged that corporate assets and funds had been transferred from China to Ontario and sought an accounting and compensation.

Applying the presumptive connecting factors framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the defendants’ domicile in Ontario established a prima facie basis for jurisdiction.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption or demonstrate that China was a clearly more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The court therefore held that Ontario had jurisdiction and adjourned the defendants’ summary judgment motion.

The appellants abandoned their appeal.

As the parties could not agree on costs, the Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the abandoned appeal payable to the respondents at $7,500, explicitly rejecting the respondents' request for substantial or full indemnity costs.

The appellant psychologist provided treatment to the respondent, an injured worker, beyond the sessions approved by the WSIB.

The appellant provided the services based on assurances from the respondent's paralegal that the WSIB would pay.

When the WSIB did not pay, the appellant sued the respondent in Small Claims Court for her unpaid account.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding no contract and no unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the respondent had made it clear he could not pay, and that the appellant had assumed the risk of non-payment by the WSIB.

The plaintiff appealed a motions judge's decision regarding the interpretation of an offer to settle in a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The Divisional Court applied a correctness standard of review and found no legal error in the motions judge's conclusion.

Despite a slight ambiguity, the offer to settle, when read as a whole and in the context of Rule 14 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, clearly remained open until one minute after the commencement of trial.

The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was bound by the acceptance of the offer.

The appellant tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a residential tenancy dispute.

The tenant had paid a full year's rent upfront, along with security and key deposits.

The trial judge awarded the tenant the return of deposits, compensation for a missing parking space, and $500 in punitive damages, while allowing the landlord's counterclaim for property damage.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the punitive damages and counterclaim findings but found the trial judge erred in failing to award interest on the entire prepaid rent balance as provided in the lease.

The appeal was allowed in part to award $826.97 in interest.