Devon Ravi Kapoor

The applicant appealed an arbitration award ordering it to pay damages for breach of a commercial parking management contract.

The applicant argued the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply proper contractual interpretation principles to a force majeure clause regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, and by failing to apply the correct test for equitable set-off.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly focused on the words of the contract and made factual findings that precluded the equitable set-off defence.

The arbitration award was upheld.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for specific performance of a failed commercial real estate agreement of purchase and sale, the denial of his post-trial motion to amend his pleadings to claim damages, and the trial judge's finding that a 12% mortgage interest rate offended s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to grant specific performance, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the property was not unique and damages would be adequate.

The Court also upheld the refusal to allow a post-trial amendment to claim damages, noting the prejudice to the respondent.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the mortgage, holding that the 12% interest rate commenced prior to default and therefore did not violate s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of two Ukrainian judgments against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed the application on three grounds: (1) the amendment seeking to enforce a 2022 BVI judgment recognizing the Ukrainian judgments was impermissible as a derivative judgment; (2) the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002; and (3) the Ukrainian judgments violated natural justice.

The court found the application was statute-barred, as the limitation period for enforcement commenced when the Ukrainian judgments became final in 2018, not when the 2022 BVI judgment was rendered.

The court also found that seeking enforcement of the 2022 BVI judgment constituted an impermissible derivative judgment.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Receiver sought an order for discharge and release, approval of its Third Report, statement of receipts and disbursements, and fees.

The Court declined to grant the discharge, citing CBJ’s unauthorized commencement of actions in Ontario and Alberta in breach of the Receivership Order.

The Court found CBJ’s disregard for court orders troubling and noted the lack of contrition or proper procedure to regularize its actions.

The motion for discharge was adjourned to allow for a more complete record and for the Receiver to advise on the value of the Ontario and Alberta actions to the estate.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to reconsider its earlier decision denying specific performance of a land sale agreement, and refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his pleading to claim damages after trial.

The court found that the uniqueness of the property to a third party in a related case was irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim, and that the plaintiff's strategic choice to seek only specific performance precluded a late amendment.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

This endorsement addresses two motions arising from a cybertheft of approximately $9.7 million from the applicant's bank account at the respondent bank.

The applicant, FACTOR, sought additional productions from the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), alleging a parsimonious approach to disclosure.

BNS, supported by other respondents, sought to convert the application into an action, citing material facts in dispute and complex issues.

The court largely granted FACTOR's production requests, ordering BNS to provide more details from its internal investigation, session logs (with confidentiality), and internal alert system details (with a secure mechanism).

The court also ordered the additional respondents, James Campagna and 10426377 Canada Inc., to produce all relevant documents.

The motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed as premature, with the court noting that the necessity of conversion could be revisited once the respondents deliver their full evidence.