Deepshikha Dutt

Appeal from an order dismissing a corporation’s action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and imposing a tailored vexatious litigant order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act on two non-party individuals associated with the corporation.

The court held that s. 140 applies to non-parties who institute or conduct vexatious litigation through a party, and upheld findings that one appellant directed the litigation from behind the scenes while the other conducted it vexatiously through an inaccurate and unsupported affidavit.

The court found the order proportionate because it was confined to receivership-related proceedings and necessary given repeated abusive relitigation and unpaid costs awards.

Leave to appeal the personal costs order was denied, and appeal costs were fixed at $50,000 all-inclusive.

This decision concerns the continuation of refusals motions in complex insurance litigation involving environmental claims at 26 mining sites operated by Vale Canada Limited.

The court addresses the proportionality and sufficiency of discovery efforts, the organization and resolution of thousands of discovery refusals, and sets out directions for further production and inquiry.

The ruling emphasizes the need for balance and proportionality in discovery, especially in large-scale litigation, and provides a framework for resolving outstanding discovery disputes ahead of trial.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Stacey Lee Crawford, declaring her the owner of her former family home and setting aside a default judgment obtained by Veeru Kantoor.

The decision addresses the validity of a second mortgage registered by Dinesh Khanna and Metro Financial Planning Limited, finding that the mortgage amount was altered without Crawford’s consent and that the business practices of Khanna and Metro were essentially illegal.

The court found that the default judgment and subsequent transfer of the property were tainted by fraud and lack of proper accounting, and ordered the property returned to Crawford, with remaining accounting issues to proceed to trial.

This endorsement addresses motions by the defendant insurers to compel Vale Canada Limited to answer refusals arising from oral and written discovery in complex insurance litigation concerning environmental claims at 26 mining sites.

The court reviews the status of discovery, the parties' agreements, and the proportionality of further discovery requests, including the use of exemplar and bridge charts to manage voluminous refusals.

The decision provides detailed directions on categories of refusals, privilege claims, and the process for resolving outstanding discovery issues, emphasizing proportionality, cooperation, and case management to keep the matter on track for trial.

Following the settlement of the main class proceeding, the defendant and third party plaintiff brought a consent motion to dismiss the third party claims against the remaining third parties.

The court granted the order dismissing the third party action with prejudice and without costs.

The defendants, a land surveying company and an employee, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' reference plan incorrectly depicted a property boundary, leading to loss of access to their mill.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act and constituted an abuse of process due to prior related litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claim was discovered within the two-year limitation period when the plaintiffs first learned the boundary might be wrong (August/September 2015), and that the action was not an abuse of process as it concerned distinct factual allegations from previous claims.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.

The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.

The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated a recommendation for the plaintiffs to agree to dismissals without costs in most cases, except potentially the claim against Grant Thornton LLP Canada, which requires leave to proceed.

The court directed that a new class action issued by one of the plaintiffs be case managed together with the existing matters.

Counsel were directed to advise on dismissals or agree on a timetable for dispositive motions by a specified date.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

The plaintiffs brought an action against multiple insurers for indemnity regarding environmental damage.

Several foreign defendants failed to deliver statements of defence within the required time limits, and one was noted in default.

The defendants sought an extension of time to defend or bring jurisdictional motions, arguing the court should wait for the outcome of a parallel proceeding commenced by one of the insurers in the United States.

The court refused to delay the Ontario proceeding, finding no prejudice to the defendants in requiring them to respond timely, and ordered the defendants to deliver their statements of defence or motion records by a specified deadline.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Koehnen.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the Mintz Family Group and $7,500 to SRTS LLP.

The appellant sued the directors and auditors of a credit union after losing his $5 million investment, alleging misrepresentations in an offering statement.

Midway through the trial, the appellant sought to amend his statement of claim to allege a new misrepresentation regarding the credit union's failure to obtain property appraisals.

The trial judge refused the amendment, finding it asserted a new cause of action that was discoverable years earlier and was therefore statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, confirming that the proposed amendment relied on a different act and a separate failure to disclose, which was not encompassed by the original pleadings.

Kik Interactive Inc. sought indemnification from AIG Insurance Company of Canada for legal expenses incurred defending an action by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) related to its cryptocurrency, Kin.

Kik argued the SEC claim was a securities claim covered by its AIG PrivateEdge Plus policy.

AIG denied coverage, citing exclusion 4(j) for claims arising from any public offering of securities.

Kik contended the exclusion was ambiguous or, alternatively, that an exception to the exclusion applied.

The court found the exclusion unambiguous, applying to all public offerings of securities, not just initial public offerings of shares.

It also determined that Kik failed to satisfy the conditions for the exception to the exclusion, as it did not provide proper notice or underwriting information, nor did AIG offer additional coverage.

Consequently, Kik's application for indemnification was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought to settle an order approving a Pierringer Agreement with the settling defendants.

A non-party insurer, who was a defendant in a separate action brought by one of the plaintiffs, objected to the wording of the order, arguing it would affect its rights.

The court held that the non-party insurer had no standing to object to the order in this action and signed the draft order as agreed to by the parties.

The plaintiff invested $5 million in preferred shares of a financially troubled credit union pursuant to an offering statement.

The credit union was subsequently placed into administration and liquidation following the discovery of a complex mortgage fraud and the issuance of large, improper loans.

The plaintiff sued the credit union's directors and external auditors, alleging a material misrepresentation in the offering statement regarding the use of 'appraised values' for mortgage approvals.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no material misrepresentation, no causation, and that the defendants had established a statutory defence.

The court also denied the plaintiff's mid-trial motion to amend the pleadings, ruling the new allegation was statute-barred.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a decision by the Director of the Ontario Racing Commission allocating Standardbred Revenue Allocation (SRA) marketing funds to both OHHA and the Central Ontario Standardbred Association (COSA).

The funds, totaling over $2.1 million, were held in trust by the Woodbine Entertainment Group after its contract with OHHA expired and it entered a new contract with COSA.

The majority of the panel denied the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the matter de novo and to interpret the underlying Memorandum of Understanding and Business Plan in the best interests of racing.

The panel concluded that COSA qualifies as a provincially recognized horsepersons' association and ordered the funds to be distributed proportionally between OHHA and COSA based on wagering levels and racetrack affiliations, subject to conditions on their use for marketing.

A dissenting member would have allocated all funds to OHHA.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motions judge found the motion was statute-barred because it was brought after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge correctly applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the CIBC trilogy, which established that a nunc pro tunc order is not available when a motion for leave is filed after the limitation period has expired.