Douglas A. Fenton

The court determined the costs for seven different motions in a complex commercial action involving Mareva injunctions and proprietary claims.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful parties on each motion, balancing divided success and the reasonableness of the amounts claimed.

In total, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay net costs to various defendants, while some defendants were ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs for motions where the plaintiffs were successful.

The Divisional Court remitted a matter back to the Superior Court to determine whether disclosing the identities of third-party funders paying the living expenses of the Aljabri defendants posed a risk to their personal safety.

The defendants adduced unchallenged evidence that the Saudi regime had previously targeted the family and associates of the lead defendant following a 2017 palace coup.

The court found a material risk that disclosure to the plaintiffs could lead to the information reaching the Saudi government, jeopardizing the funders' safety.

The court ordered that the identities remain disclosed on a counsels' eyes only basis and not be provided to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant waived litigation privilege over a 'Proffer' document provided to the Attorney General of Canada for national security vetting under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that while the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, the defendant's stated intention of using it to promote trial efficiency constituted a waiver of privilege vis-à-vis the trial judge.

The court ordered the unredacted Proffer to be provided to the judge and established a comprehensive trial protocol, including the appointment of amicus curiae and advance vetting of sensitive evidence, to balance national security concerns with trial fairness.

The applicants and respondent both sought costs following an application regarding the enforceability of a contingency fee agreement.

The applicants had abandoned part of their claim shortly before the hearing, conceding the agreement applied to the trial award, but succeeded in arguing it did not apply to the appeal award or settlement.

The court found there was divided success and that the applicants' abandonment of claims did not warrant a costs award against them, as the respondent's work contributed to the success on that portion.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The applicants sought a declaration that a contingency fee agreement (CFA) executed in October 2019 applied only to the trial award and not to the increased award on appeal or to a subsequent settlement.

The respondent law firm claimed entitlement to a 30% contingency on both the appeal award and settlement.

The court found that the CFA was a trial retainer only, that no valid contingency fee agreement existed for the appeal (as any alleged oral agreement failed to comply with the Solicitors Act requirement that contingency fee agreements be in writing), and that the CFA did not apply to the settlement.

The court awarded the lawyers fees on a quantum meruit basis for their appeal work.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

Both the moving parties and the responding parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the issue was moot in the context of the case.

The responding parties' motion for leave to appeal was granted, with costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge dated November 15, 2024.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the responding parties.

The decision concerns a motion by Saad Aljabri and related parties for leave to issue a counterclaim in a complex civil action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and conspiracy was statute-barred under Ontario law, and that the applicants failed to prove that Saudi law applied or that any exception to the limitation period existed.

The court also found that the proposed claims for declaratory relief against additional parties were not supported by a tenable cause of action.

The risk of prejudice to the plaintiffs, including loss of the scheduled trial date and increased costs, further supported dismissal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Shantanu Shirodkar’s appeal seeking to certify a class action against Coinbase Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries for alleged violations of securities laws.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction over the non-Canadian Coinbase entities and that Ireland was the preferable forum for the claims, staying the action against Coinbase Canada as well.

The decision addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses, the application of the “real and substantial connection” test, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the context of cross-border crypto-asset trading.

The decision addresses a motion by Saad Aljabri, Mohammed Aljabri, and various corporate defendants to vary Mareva orders freezing their worldwide assets, seeking the release of frozen funds to pay legal fees.

The court grants the motion for all moving parties except Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd., finding that the Mareva Defendants have shown they lack access to other assets or reliable third-party funding, and that a variation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The court dismisses the motion by Dreams, finding insufficient evidence that it lacks access to other funds.

The decision reviews the legal test for varying Mareva orders and applies a balancing of interests, including the merits of the case, the complexity of the litigation, and the conduct of the parties.

This decision addresses three motions in the receivership of the Bridging Funds: (1) the Receiver’s motion for an interim distribution to unitholders, (2) approval of a settlement with the BlackRock Parties, and (3) the unitholders’ motion for a constructive trust.

The court approved the interim distribution but required a sufficient reserve for the disputed Cerieco claim until its final determination.

The BlackRock settlement was approved.

The constructive trust motion was deferred pending resolution of the Cerieco claim.

The decision provides detailed guidance on the treatment of creditor and unitholder claims in a complex receivership under the Securities Act.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to compel the production of law firm trust ledgers and unredacted bank statements from the respondents.

The underlying action involves allegations of a massive international civil fraud.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the law firm trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption.

The Court also agreed that the 'future crimes and fraud' exception to solicitor-client privilege did not apply to civil fraud.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in presuming privilege over redacted entries in non-law firm bank statements without requiring the respondents to prove the privilege claim.

The issue of the unredacted bank statements was remitted to the motion judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that a document ("the Proffer") provided by the defendant to the Attorney General for Canada (AGC) under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act was not subject to privilege or that any such privilege had been waived, and an order for its production.

The defendant asserted litigation privilege.

The court found that the Proffer was created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation, making it presumptively protected by litigation privilege.

The court further held that the disclosure of the Proffer to the AGC, being a statutory compulsion, did not constitute a voluntary waiver of privilege, nor did fairness and consistency require waiver.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.

This case addresses a corporate deadlock within AnalytixInsight Inc. (ALY) between two factions of its board of directors, stemming from serious allegations of misconduct, including insider tipping, self-dealing, and material non-disclosure, against the former CEO and his allies.

The Applicant Faction sought an investigation under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and oppression remedy relief.

The court found a prima facie case of oppressive and dishonest conduct by the Respondent Faction, warranting immediate interim intervention.

An inspector was ordered to investigate the allegations, and the alleged wrongdoers were temporarily precluded from board participation, with an interim board appointed to ensure company functionality.

This is a securities class action where the Plaintiff sought approval of a settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants and pre-settlement orders for a proposed settlement with the Gatos Defendants.

The court approved the C$1,000,000 settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

For the Gatos Defendants, the court granted leave to proceed under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, and approved the proposed notice plan and ancillary orders, paving the way for a future US$3,000,000 settlement approval motion.

The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Coinbase Europe Limited, and Coinbase Canada Inc., brought a motion to dismiss a putative class action for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, to permanently stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Ontario securities legislation by distributing crypto assets without complying with prospectus requirements.

The court found presence-based jurisdiction only over Coinbase Canada Inc. due to its business activities in Ontario.

However, the court found no presence-based, consent-based, or assumed jurisdiction over Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., or Coinbase Global.

Consequently, the action against Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., and Coinbase Global was dismissed.

The court then considered forum non conveniens for Coinbase Canada Inc., concluding that Ireland was a clearly more appropriate forum given that the plaintiff's claims arose from transactions with Coinbase Europe, which was domiciled in Ireland, and the lack of a class action framework in Ireland was not a decisive juridical disadvantage.

The action against Coinbase Canada Inc. was permanently stayed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the Defendant, Andrew Rudensky, to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs argued for no costs or an offset, asserting Mr. Rudensky's fault for the default.

The court found the Plaintiffs solely responsible for failing to properly serve Mr. Rudensky, thus dismissing their arguments regarding his alleged fault or delay.

The court also rejected Mr. Rudensky's claim for substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10, finding that his offer to settle was not "beaten" by the costs endorsement itself.

Ultimately, the court fixed Mr. Rudensky's partial indemnity costs at $79,253.40, payable by the Plaintiffs within 30 days.

The defendant, Andrew Rudensky, moved to set aside a default judgment and noting of default obtained by the plaintiffs for defamation.

The court found that the Amended Statement of Claim was not properly served on Mr. Rudensky at his place of residence, rendering the default judgment irregularly obtained.

Applying the "as of right" rule for irregularly obtained judgments, the court set aside both the default judgment and the noting of default.

The Plaintiffs, Anson Advisors Inc. and Moez Kassam, brought a motion for default judgment against Andrew Rudensky for defamation, seeking $500,000 in general damages and a permanent injunction.

Rudensky, who had been noted in default and had largely ignored the proceedings, appeared at the last minute to request an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the facts pleaded in the Amended Claim, deemed admitted by Rudensky's default, established the tort of defamation.

Considering the extensive and malicious nature of the online publications, the plaintiffs' professional standing, and the defendant's persistent and evasive conduct, the court awarded $450,000 in general damages and granted a permanent injunction to prevent further defamatory publications.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiffs.