3 total
The court ordered a non-resident corporate plaintiff to post $140,000 in security for costs after finding its claims were not joint with a resident co-plaintiff.
The court considered a motion by the Defendants for security for costs against the Plaintiff Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited (BHF) in a high-value commercial litigation.
The court reviewed the legal framework under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the justness of ordering security, the merits of the claim, and the financial circumstances of the parties.
The court found that BHF did not have sufficient assets in Ontario, and the claims of BHF and co-plaintiff Rong Kai Hong were not joint such that one could satisfy the other's costs.
The court ordered BHF to post $140,000 as security for costs, balancing the interests of both parties and ensuring access to justice.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's credibility findings and convictions for sexual assault.
The appellant appealed convictions for four counts of sexual assault, one count of assault, and one count of forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability by treating memory gaps and inconsistencies as enhancing factors, and materially misapprehended the evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly grappled with the difficulties in the complainant's evidence, provided rational explanations for her findings, and that her credibility findings were owed deference.
Privacy Officers included in bargaining unit; duties do not create a conflict of interest.
The union filed a policy grievance concerning the WSIB's exclusion of the newly created Privacy Officer position from the 'all employee' bargaining unit.
The employer argued the position should be excluded under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act due to a conflict of interest arising from their duties, which included investigating privacy breaches and advising on privacy compliance.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the Privacy Officers did not exercise managerial functions, nor were they employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.
Their access to sensitive information and role in compliance did not create a conflict of interest with being members of the bargaining unit.
The grievance was allowed, and the Privacy Officers were included in the bargaining unit.
