Erin Pleet

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action alleging that the defendant airline improperly charged United States transportation taxes on ticket purchases.

The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court held that Ontario had presence‑based jurisdiction because the defendant carried on business in Ontario and there was a real and substantial connection to the dispute.

The revenue rule did not bar adjudication because the action did not seek to enforce foreign tax laws but rather challenged the defendant’s collection of charges from customers.

The motion was dismissed with respect to claims relating to tickets paid for in Canada but granted in relation to tickets paid for in the United States, which were stayed as U.S. courts were the clearly more appropriate forum.

The applicant sought a permanent statutory injunction restraining the respondent from practising law or providing legal services in Ontario without a licence, contrary to the Law Society Act.

Evidence showed the respondent advertised legal and paralegal services online, distributed business cards, accepted retainers, and attempted to represent individuals in various forums including Small Claims Court, the Landlord and Tenant Board, criminal court matters, and Superior Court proceedings despite not being licensed.

The court applied the test for statutory injunctions and emphasized the public interest in preventing unauthorized legal practice and protecting the public.

The evidence demonstrated multiple instances where members of the public paid retainers and received no services.

A permanent injunction was granted restraining the respondent and any business controlled by her from providing legal services or holding herself out as entitled to do so.

The applicant sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondent, a property manager who regularly appeared before the Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board on behalf of landlords, from providing legal services without a licence.

The respondent argued he was entitled to appear as a landlord’s “personal representative” within the definition of “landlord” under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court held that appearing before a tribunal as a paid representative to make submissions and examine witnesses constitutes the provision of legal services requiring a licence under the Law Society Act.

The term “personal representative” in the Residential Tenancies Act was interpreted in its traditional estates law sense and does not include a paid property manager.

A permanent injunction was issued restraining the respondent from providing legal services without a licence.

The appellant appealed an order upholding a previous order that set aside its statement of defence and dismissed its counterclaim.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, characterizing the motion as a collateral attack, and failing to properly weigh the appellant's self-represented status and the short duration of delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge comprehensively balanced the interests of the parties and correctly concluded the appellant had wholly failed to comply with court orders without reasonable explanation.

The appellants, auditors and underwriters of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed an order declaring that their claims for contribution and indemnity against Sino-Forest were 'equity claims' under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The claims arose from proposed shareholder class actions alleging misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'equity claim' in s. 2(1) of the CCAA focuses on the nature of the claim rather than the identity of the claimant.

The court found that the appellants' claims for contribution and indemnity were clearly connected to the shareholders' equity claims and thus fell within the expansive statutory definition.