Erika Jean Woolgar

Bombardier Inc. appealed a decision by Associate Justice Jolley that largely dismissed Bombardier's request for a further and better affidavit of documents from Triple-K Consult Ltd. Bombardier sought documents related to an audit, which it claimed was a precondition to commission payments.

The appeal judge upheld the Associate Justice's findings, determining that Bombardier had not established the relevance or existence of most requested documents, distinguishing between documents relevant to the audit process and those relevant to the litigation's core defence of non-compliance with the audit.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Triple-K Consult Ltd.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following the dismissal of motions by UD Trading Group and Rutmet for intervention and consolidation, and a cross-motion by TransAsia Private Capital Ltd. (TAP) for vexatious litigation.

The court had previously ordered a stay of proceedings on its own initiative.

The UD Group sought costs from TAP, while TAP primarily argued for each party to bear their own costs, or alternatively, sought partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court rejected the relevance of a subsequent Singapore judgment to the costs determination and ultimately ordered that all participating parties bear their own costs of the dismissed motions and cross-motion.

The defendant, Bombardier Inc., brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Triple-K Consult Ltd., to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

Bombardier argued it had a contractual right to audit the plaintiff's activities to verify compliance with their sales representative agreement and applicable laws before commissions were payable.

The plaintiff contended it had complied with the audit request and that further demands were beyond the contractual scope.

The court largely dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff had substantially complied and that many of the requested documents were not relevant or better pursued through discovery.

The court ordered only the production of supporting documents for $35,000 in expenses claimed by the plaintiff's principal.

The applicants sought coverage under a trade credit insurance policy issued by Export Development Canada (EDC).

EDC denied coverage due to underlying disputes regarding the receivables owed by the UD Group to Rutmet.

Rutmet and the UD Group brought motions to intervene in the application and consolidate it with their own actions.

The applicants brought a cross-motion to declare Rutmet and the UD Group vexatious litigants.

The court, on its own initiative, stayed the application pending the determination of the substantive disputes in ongoing foreign proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, finding that those jurisdictions had already been determined to be the appropriate forums.

Consequently, the motions to intervene and consolidate, as well as the cross-motion, were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to remove Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP as lawyers of record for the plaintiff, LaSalle Electrical Contractors Inc. Norton Rose also represented the third party, Jensen Building Ltd., in this action and a related construction lien action.

The defendants argued that Norton Rose was in a conflict of interest and could misuse confidential information obtained from the third party against the defendants.

The court granted the motion, finding a potential for conflict and mischief, and ordered Norton Rose removed as counsel for the plaintiff.

A cross-motion for consolidation and waiver of the implied undertaking rule was adjourned.

Export Development Canada (EDC) brought a motion to temporarily stay the respondent's application pending the resolution of a related action.

The respondent, a trade financing lender, sought a declaration regarding coverage under an export credit insurance policy issued by EDC.

EDC argued that the validity of a power of attorney, which was being challenged in the related action, needed to be determined first.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that EDC had delayed in taking its position, the related action was proceeding slowly, and a stay would cause significant prejudice to the respondent.

The Plaintiffs (UDG) sought an anti-suit injunction to halt proceedings against them in Dubai and Singapore concerning an alleged outstanding debt and guarantees.

The Defendants (TAP) cross-moved to dismiss or stay the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, citing forum selection clauses.

The court denied the anti-suit injunction, finding UDG failed to meet the Amchem test, particularly by not pursuing stays in the foreign jurisdictions.

The court also found Ontario was not the natural forum, given the parties' residences, witness locations, and applicable foreign laws.

The Plaintiffs' Ontario action was permanently stayed.