Irfan Kara

The action involved alleged breaches of agreements.

The defendants moved to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds, and to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff cross-moved for default judgment.

The court set aside the noting in default for most defendants and service for two, staying the action against those two.

However, the court found jurisdiction over the main defendants based on presumptive connecting factors and a valid forum selection clause, dismissing their motion to stay.

The court largely upheld the statement of claim, striking only two paragraphs, but ordered the plaintiff to add the contracting corporation as a proper plaintiff, staying the action until then.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement and the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendants' costs claims were excessive.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $45,000 to Leggett and $3,500 to Garlock.

The plaintiff, 1207717 Ontario Inc., and defendants, Leggett & Platt Canada Co. and Garlock of Canada Ltd., brought motions and cross-motions to enforce a settlement agreement concerning environmental contamination.

Leggett sought a declaration that the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was complete and dismissal of the action and crossclaim. 1207717 Ontario sought further groundwater testing, arguing the RAP was incomplete.

The court interpreted the settlement agreement, finding that the specified two-year monitoring period and "stable or decreasing" contamination standard had been met by Leggett's consultant's reports.

The court rejected 1207717 Ontario's arguments for further testing or that Ministry of Environment standards were relevant, as these were not part of the contract.

Leggett's motion was granted, and 1207717 Ontario's cross-motion was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the action and crossclaim without costs.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the plaintiffs' action against the moving defendants, the issue of costs for four summary judgment motions was returned to the motion judge.

The moving defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiffs alleged fraud and failed to accept a walk-away offer.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no fraud was pleaded and the communication was not a formal offer to settle.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and noting duplication of effort among multiple defence counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at a total of $235,000.

The defendant, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central East Region (Newmarket) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, Smartcentres Management Inc. and North Park Shopping Centres Limited, opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding that the events, subject matter, and damages were primarily located in Toronto, and that Toronto was "significantly better" in the interests of justice after a holistic application of the factors outlined in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).

The defendants brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 25.11, arguing they were irrelevant and scandalous.

The plaintiff's claim was based on the common employer doctrine, alleging the defendants were his employers despite his contract being with an insolvent related corporation.

The court struck paragraphs solely related to the plaintiff's employment qualifications and performance, finding them irrelevant to the common employer determination.

However, the court allowed most other impugned paragraphs to stand, including those detailing corporate structure, operations, and post-termination events leading to the original employer's insolvency, deeming them relevant to the common employer analysis and the potential for unfairness to the employee.

The applicant, Monika Caryk, sought a Norwich Order compelling the respondent, Melinda Karlsson, to disclose information relevant to allegations that Caryk engaged in cyberbullying of Karlsson.

Caryk's reputation was allegedly damaged by media reports attributing online posts to her, stemming from Karlsson's now-expired peace bond application.

The court applied the five-part test for a Norwich Order, finding that Caryk failed to establish a tenable cause of action, that Karlsson was the only practicable source of the information, or that the interests of justice favored granting the order.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Following summary judgment motions brought by nine defendants, which were largely dismissed but resulted in the narrowing of the plaintiffs' claims, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought $182,725 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants sought $289,249.

The court found that the plaintiffs were generally successful as the actions were not dismissed, but granted the defendants a 25% credit ($72,000) for their partial success in narrowing the issues.

The plaintiffs were awarded net costs of $100,000.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class action by former junior hockey players seeking minimum wage and overtime pay, the court determined the costs awards.

The plaintiffs succeeded in certifying the action against the Canadian teams but failed against the American teams.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,212,065.63 in partial indemnity costs, with $500,000 payable forthwith and the balance in the cause.

The American teams were awarded $200,000 in costs, which the court ordered to be credited against the plaintiffs' award, akin to a Bullock or Sanderson order, reflecting that both sides were responsible for the excessive litigation expense.

The defendants, Bayer Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer OY, brought a motion to formally stay a proposed national class action in Ontario, initiated by Kimberley Babin, in favour of ongoing national class actions in Alberta.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, seeking to revive the Ontario action after an informal stay.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's consortium had chosen Alberta as the primary forum and should pursue the action there.

The court rejected the plaintiff's reasons for returning to Ontario, which included concerns about the pace of the Alberta action and the failure to serve foreign defendants in Alberta, characterizing such actions as forum shopping and an attempt to hedge procedural choices.

The court emphasized the importance of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and judicial comity.

The plaintiffs, former players in the Ontario Hockey League, brought a motion to certify a class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its regional leagues, and their respective teams.

The plaintiffs alleged that the players were employees and were entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay under employment standards legislation.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding for the claims of breach of employment statutes and unjust enrichment against the Ontario teams.

The court declined to certify the claims against the U.S. teams, finding that a class action in Ontario was not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also declined to certify redundant causes of action, including breach of contract, negligence, breach of good faith, conspiracy, and waiver of tort.

The court found that the representative plaintiffs were adequate and had no disqualifying conflict of interest with current players.