Evgeny Kozlov

The plaintiff, a corporate entity managing a sports facility, brought an action against several soccer associations for negligence and intentional interference with economic relations (unlawful means tort).

The claims arose from the issuance of International Transfer Certificates for two players, the non-approval of an invitational tournament, and communications regarding unsanctioned indoor soccer leagues.

The court dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the associations, as the plaintiff was not a member and had actively distanced itself from them.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of unlawful acts against third parties or intent to harm the plaintiff, and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The court heard three motions arising from two related actions involving a former employee and his employer.

The employer moved to strike portions of the employee's constructive dismissal claim and for summary judgment on an outstanding employee loan, while the employee moved for the appointment of a case management judge.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered them sealed, referred the matter for case management, and granted summary judgment for the loan balance of $45,119.05, with enforcement stayed pending the outcome of the constructive dismissal action.

The court heard three motions arising from two related actions involving a former employee and his employer.

The employer moved to strike portions of the employee's constructive dismissal claim and for summary judgment on an outstanding employee loan, while the employee moved for the appointment of a case management judge.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered them sealed, referred the matter for case management, and granted summary judgment for the loan balance of $45,119.05, with enforcement stayed pending the outcome of the constructive dismissal action.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for child support, the applicant sought costs of $7,402.62.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the jurisdiction issue and the mixed conduct of both parties.

Taking into account the respondent's limited ability to pay and his obligations in Russia, the court awarded the applicant reduced costs of $1,019.83.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applicant's child support claim in Ontario for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant and child reside in Russia, a non-reciprocating jurisdiction, and that Ontario was *forum non conveniens*.

The applicant, residing in Russia, sought an Ontario order for enforceability due to the respondent's irregular payments.

The court found it had "presence-based" jurisdiction over the respondent, who lives in Ontario, and that the *Family Law Act* does not require the child to reside in Ontario.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, assuming jurisdiction and applying Ontario law, conditional on the applicant vacating the Russian support order.

The plaintiff and defendants both brought motions for summary judgment regarding a debt of $1,027,654.31 allegedly owed under a loan agreement and promissory note.

The individual defendant signed the agreements on behalf of a corporation that had not yet been incorporated.

The court dismissed both motions, finding genuine issues for trial regarding what funds were actually advanced, the complex repayment scheme, and whether the corporation adopted the pre-incorporation contracts through its subsequent conduct.

The applicant sought reinstatement of spousal support after the respondent unilaterally suspended payments under Minutes of Settlement resolving family law issues following separation.

The respondent claimed the applicant removed household items contrary to the agreement and relied on a clause permitting suspension of support pending an accounting.

The court found ambiguity and contradiction in the settlement terms governing division of household chattels and concluded the agreement did not clearly resolve the issue.

As a result, the respondent was not entitled to suspend support payments.

The court ordered an accounting of household chattels before an arbitrator and directed that ongoing support and arrears be paid into court pending resolution.