Corey Groper

The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against the defendants.

Before the hearing, two defendants were placed into bankruptcy by a separate creditor.

The bankrupt defendants appealed the bankruptcy orders, arguing the appeal automatically stayed the bankruptcy.

The court held that appeals from an Associate Justice's bankruptcy order lie to a Superior Court judge under s. 192(4) of the BIA, which does not trigger an automatic stay under s. 195.

Consequently, the action and Mareva injunction application were stayed against the bankrupt defendants, and a new timetable was set for the remaining defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the third party claim as disclosing no cause of action.

The third party claim named 27 different third parties, including individual shareholders and their spouses, corporate entities, the plaintiffs' bank, and the plaintiffs' lawyers.

The court found that the third party claim was based on bald allegations without material facts and failed to meet the minimal pleading standards.

The court struck the third party claim in its entirety with leave to amend and awarded costs to the third parties on a partial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant lawyer made false and defamatory statements regarding the plaintiff's affidavit of service.

The court dismissed the action on multiple grounds: the statement was true (justification defence), it was not published to a third party (only copied to the defendant's assistant), and it was protected by absolute privilege as communications incidental to litigation.

The court also noted that the plaintiff had selectively referenced email communications out of context in the statement of claim.

The Applicant successfully sought costs on a full indemnity basis after having the Respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The Respondent requested deferral of the costs decision pending an appeal of the vexatious litigant finding, which the court denied.

The court awarded full indemnity costs of $60,888.36, inclusive of HST and disbursements, finding such an award appropriate given the vexatious nature of the Respondent's conduct and the importance of the application in curbing abusive proceedings.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a proposed $500,000 settlement of a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by a cannabis company.

The court declined to approve the settlement, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove it was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court cited concerns over the gross disparity between the Canadian settlement and a $2.9 million USD settlement in a parallel US proceeding, the lack of evidence regarding estimated class size and recovery per member, and unexplained issues regarding insurance coverage.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent was a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, along with an order prohibiting further proceedings without leave and requiring payment of outstanding costs.

The court reviewed the respondent's history of litigation, including persistent unsuccessful appeals, failure to pay costs, abusive conduct, and meritless applications.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be vexatious, abusive, and a drain on judicial resources, granting the applicant's request for a vexatious litigant declaration and associated relief.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion for leave to commence a class action under the Securities Act and for certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes.

The action alleged misrepresentations in public statements by the defendants.

The parties reached a proposed settlement of $500,000.

The court granted leave and certified the class for settlement, finding all certification criteria met, albeit with less strict application for settlement purposes.

The court approved the representative plaintiff and the administrator but required revisions to the proposed class notices and further submissions regarding the notice dissemination plan to ensure clarity and proper information for class members.

A putative class action had settled, subject to court approval.

A proposed intervener sought a timetable to bring a motion to intervene and be appointed representative plaintiff.

The existing parties to the action sought a timetable for the certification and settlement approval motions, arguing that the intervention motion should not be scheduled unless settlement approval was denied.

The court determined that the certification and settlement approval motions should be heard first, and the intervention motion would only be scheduled if settlement approval was not granted.

The defendant, University of Ottawa, brought a motion to dismiss a proposed class action for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action, commenced in May 2018, was subject to a mandatory dismissal date of October 1, 2021, due to transition provisions, as no certification motion had been filed nor a timetable agreed upon or ordered.

The plaintiff argued that settlement negotiations constituted steps to advance the proceeding and that promissory estoppel applied.

The court found that settlement negotiations do not satisfy the statutory requirements and that there was no evidence to establish promissory estoppel.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a creditor of the Kyrgyz Republic, appealed the dismissal of its garnishment motion against Centerra Gold Inc., seeking to garnish a $50 million intercompany payment made by Centerra to its subsidiary, Kumtor Gold Company CJSC (KGC), as part of a court-approved plan of arrangement.

The appellant argued that the Kyrgyz Republic was the alter ego of KGC due to de facto appropriation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's determination that Centerra had not lost all control over KGC and was not deprived of all economic benefits, and that KGC remained a separate corporate entity.

This is a motion to quash an appeal of an order for payment out of court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the order for payment out of funds, made after the merits of the action had been finally decided, was an interlocutory order.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from interlocutory orders lie with the Divisional Court.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted, with costs awarded to the moving parties.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting partial summary judgment and dismissing a counterclaim.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in hearing the partial summary judgment motion, in granting the judgment, in awarding duplicative compensation, and in appreciating fraudulent concealment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the motion judge's decision to hear the partial summary judgment, her findings of fact, or her awards of punitive damages and full indemnity costs, which were distinct from the denial of a success fee.

The claim regarding fraudulent concealment was also dismissed for lack of specificity.

The applicant mining company sought a final order approving a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act to sever ties with the Kyrgyz Republic following the state's seizure of its flagship mine.

Two unsecured judgment creditors of the Republic objected, seeking to enforce their arbitral awards against the Republic's shares in the applicant or garnish payments under the Arrangement.

The court approved the Arrangement, finding it met the statutory requirements, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable.

The court held the creditors lacked standing to oppose the Arrangement and that garnishment was inappropriate as it would result in double jeopardy.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the production of documents prior to a leave motion under the Securities Act, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the corporate defendant and one individual defendant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the other individual defendant, finding that the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing the motion against him and making unfounded allegations of deliberate misconduct was unreasonable and warranted sanction.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay a total of $36,603.87 in costs.

The plaintiff in a putative class action for secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents referenced in the defendants' affidavits prior to serving his reply record.

Alternatively, the plaintiff sought to strike the portions of the affidavits referencing those documents.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the plaintiff has no right to documentary discovery at the leave stage under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, and that the proper mechanism for production is through cross-examination after the reply is served.

The court also declined to strike the affidavits, noting that hearsay is permitted on motions.

The moving parties, NDrive, Navigation Systems S.A. and its directors, sought security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against the appellants (Zhou parties) in an ongoing appeal.

The motion judge had previously found the appellants liable for civil fraud, awarded substantial damages and full indemnity costs, and noted their shocking and reprehensible litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, totaling $300,000, finding that the prior findings of fraud and litigation misconduct, coupled with the appellants' insufficient assets in Ontario, constituted "other good reason" under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated May 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

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

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants Zhou and Aguazion Inc. following two successful motions: a Mareva injunction and a variation of that order due to Zhou's fraud and misrepresentation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the first motion, payable in the cause, and substantial indemnity costs for the second motion, fixed at $52,415.07, payable forthwith or from the Alternative Payment of Security Option (APSO) fund.

The judge found Zhou's conduct, including perjury and misleading evidence, warranted serious costs consequences, justifying substantial indemnity for the second motion.