Firestone

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, sued the defendant, a Wisconsin corporation, in Ontario for unpaid royalty payments under a licence agreement.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or was forum non conveniens.

The court found it had jurisdiction because the defendant carried on business in Ontario through its employees and direct sales.

The court declined to stay the action, finding the defendant failed to establish that Wisconsin was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The applicant and respondents operated a chiropractic and physiotherapy clinic as a partnership.

Following the dissolution of the partnership, the respondents continued to operate out of the same premises using partnership assets.

The applicant sought a share of the post-dissolution profits under s. 42 of the Partnerships Act and a determination of the fair market value of his one-third share of the partnership.

The court awarded the applicant a portion of the post-dissolution profits based on the percentage attributable to the use of partnership assets, and determined the fair market value of his share using a capitalized cash flow approach with a minority discount, resulting in a total award of $62,246.68.

The plaintiff, having been found not criminally responsible, was ordered detained at a mental health facility but was instead held in a provincial jail for 50 days due to a lack of hospital beds.

The plaintiff sued the Crown for false imprisonment and Charter breaches.

The Crown moved to strike portions of the Statement of Claim.

The court struck the false imprisonment and Charter damages claims with leave to amend, finding the Crown statutorily immune based on the current pleadings and noting the failure to plead bad faith for Charter damages.

The court allowed the underlying Charter breach claims to proceed.

The defendant, a resident and chief architect of the Ministry of Works and Engineering of Bermuda, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' conspiracy action against him on the grounds of state immunity and lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiffs, former Bermudian government officials, alleged the defendant conspired with an Ontario architect to plant altered cheques in government files to falsely implicate them in a kickback scheme.

The court found the defendant was not immune from suit due to the commercial activity exception under the State Immunity Act.

However, the court dismissed the action against the moving defendant, concluding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as the plaintiffs failed to establish a real and substantial connection to the province.