Daniel S. Melamed

The applicant brought a 14B motion seeking, among other things, abridgment of service time, validation of service, substituted service by email and courier to a respondent residing in the People’s Republic of China, and permission to bring further motions before a case conference.

The court considered the requirements of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and relevant appellate authority emphasizing compliance with international service procedures.

Although evidence suggested the respondent had actual knowledge of the proceeding, the court held that where the Hague Convention applies, its service requirements must be respected.

The applicant failed to establish a basis for validating service or permitting substituted service inconsistent with the Convention.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to renewal with further evidence and a factum.

Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion brought by certain respondents seeking dismissal of part of a claim, the court addressed costs.

The motion was dismissed and another respondent was entirely successful.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful party.

Costs were awarded inclusive of taxes and disbursements.