Daniel George Cohen

The applicants sought an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare the respondents vexatious litigants and preclude further litigation.

The respondents, particularly Evan Argiloff, had engaged in persistent and groundless proceedings, including multiple lawsuits, improper construction liens, and repeated attempts to obtain default judgments, all stemming from a failed business relationship.

The court found that the respondents' conduct was vexatious and persistent, clearly outweighing their right of access to the courts.

The application was granted, declaring the respondents vexatious litigants and imposing restrictions on future proceedings.

The self-represented appellant filed a motion for leave to appeal three Superior Court orders relating to costs and the discharge of construction liens.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the appeals lacked merit, the appellant had over $125,000 in unpaid costs orders, and the litigation history demonstrated a clear abuse of process, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and barred further motions until all outstanding costs are paid.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's 60-paragraph statement of claim, which alleged a broad conspiracy of mortgage fraud involving numerous parties and properties.

The court struck the claim in its entirety under Rule 25.11, finding it unduly prolix, confusing, and likely to prejudice a fair trial.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to re-plead specific, legally viable claims related to her own property, while denying leave to re-plead claims that constituted a collateral attack on a prior judgment or sought relief on behalf of third parties.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

In a proposed national class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to compel pre-certification discovery from a non-party, Bloomberg LP.

The defendants brought a motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from taking any steps in furtherance of the subpoena without authorization from the Ontario court.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had circumvented Ontario's rules and jurisprudence regarding the discovery of non-parties and pre-certification discovery in class actions.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to control its own process and regulate the examination of non-parties for an Ontario action.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing its unjust enrichment claim for disgorgement of the respondents' profits.

The appellant argued that if a settlement agreement between the parties was found unenforceable under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, it should be entitled to disgorgement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's deprivation could not exceed damages calculated under section 8, which do not include disgorgement.

Furthermore, the regulatory scheme provided a valid juristic reason for the respondents' profits, precluding the unjust enrichment claim.

Innovator pharmaceutical companies brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of a generic manufacturer’s claim for disgorgement of revenues or profits based on unjust enrichment.

The claim arose from alleged wrongful invocation of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, which had delayed the generic manufacturer’s market entry for a drug containing lansoprazole.

The court held that s. 8 of the NOC Regulations constitutes a complete statutory code governing compensation for delayed market entry and excludes equitable remedies such as disgorgement of innovators’ profits.

The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Apotex v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. was followed as highly persuasive authority confirming that Parliament deliberately excluded profit disgorgement through the 2006 amendments to the Regulations.

In any event, the statutory framework and the parties’ settlement agreement each constituted juristic reasons defeating the unjust enrichment claim.