Evelyn M. ten Cate

The Applicants sought to enforce Letters Rogatory from an Illinois court to compel ModiFace Inc., a Canadian non-party, to produce its un-obfuscated source code and provide deposition testimony in a class action against Amazon.

ModiFace resisted, arguing the request was too broad, unnecessary, and contrary to public policy due to the proprietary nature of its source code.

The court, applying Canadian principles of comity and public policy, denied the request for un-obfuscated source code, finding it not relevant, necessary, or otherwise obtainable under Ontario law, and that its production would be unduly burdensome and contrary to public policy.

The court ordered ModiFace to produce compiled and obfuscated code and submit to a deposition with specific procedural protections under Ontario rules.

The Riggi defendants brought a motion for a declaration that a prior "all-inclusive" settlement of $20,000 for a motor vehicle accident claim was valid and enforceable, and for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, including the main plaintiff and Family Law Act (FLA) claimants, opposed the motion, arguing that no valid settlement was reached, or if it was, it was unconscionable, unfair, and would result in injustice.

The court found that a valid and enforceable settlement had been reached between the main plaintiff and the Riggi defendants, and that the FLA claims, being derivative, were also settled.

The court declined to set aside the settlement, finding no evidence of unconscionability or that the defendants took advantage of any inequality.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, enforcing the settlement and dismissing the claims against the Riggi defendants.

This summary judgment motion concerned a failed real estate purchase of a newly constructed home.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract, while the defendants sought the return of their deposits.

The central dispute revolved around whether the agreement was void due to the plaintiff's late acceptance of a conditional term extension, despite a "time is of the essence" clause.

The court found that the defendants, by their subsequent actions (delivering a waiver, paying a second deposit, and later acknowledging inability to close while requesting mitigation), affirmed the contract.

The court concluded the contract was binding and anticipatorily breached by the defendants.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the difference in sale price and some carrying costs, but not for all claimed expenses due to insufficient documentation.

This uncontested trial addressed a high-conflict family dispute concerning decision-making and parenting time for a six-year-old child.

The respondent mother had repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the applicant father, withheld the child from him for extended periods, and refused to cooperate with court orders and investigations by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the mother's actions constituted family violence, causing emotional and psychological harm to the child.

Consequently, the court ordered a change in the child's primary residence from the mother to the father, granted the father sole decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to pay child support and significant costs due to her unreasonable and intransigent conduct throughout the litigation.