J.A. Thorburn

The applicant brought a motion to re-open his conviction appeal and set aside the abandonment of his sentence appeal, after his appeal had been dismissed on the merits.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding his statements voluntary, that the appellate court erred in its reasons, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no real concern of a miscarriage of justice to warrant re-opening the conviction appeal, and concluding that the proposed sentence appeal had no prospect of success.

The moving parties sought to set aside an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that denied them an extension of time to appeal.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion to remove opposing counsel from the record, which had been dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside, confirming that the underlying order was interlocutory and therefore the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The parties agreed not to seek any costs of the appeal motions or the appeals.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement reflecting this agreement, with no costs awarded.

The applicant sought a declaration that a foreign state held an equitable or other interest in shares of a Canadian mining company registered in the name of a state-owned corporation, and an order permitting seizure of those shares to satisfy an unpaid international arbitral award.

The court examined the structure of the state-owned corporation, the governing agreements surrounding the share issuance, and applicable foreign and domestic law.

It concluded that the foreign state provided the consideration for the shares, exercised effective control over them, and was intended by the parties to have a beneficial interest.

Under s. 18 of the Execution Act, that equitable interest constituted property capable of seizure.

The court therefore authorized seizure of the shares and related dividends to enforce the arbitral award.

The moving parties sought an order restraining a private investigator from disclosing or assisting others in disclosing documents and information obtained through the discovery process in related civil litigation.

The investigator, who was not a party to the action, had obtained thousands of documents produced on discovery and had disseminated some of them to third parties, including media outlets, and moved the documents outside the jurisdiction.

The court considered the scope and purpose of the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and authorities recognizing that the rule protects discovery material from collateral use.

It held that the court has jurisdiction to restrain third parties who knowingly obtain and use discovery documents contrary to the rule.

Given the investigator’s deliberate conduct in soliciting and disseminating the documents and attempting to evade court authority, a restraining order was warranted.

An estate beneficiary sought removal of a co‑estate trustee and repayment of approximately $131,000 allegedly misappropriated from their father while the respondent acted under a power of attorney and provided caregiving.

The applicant argued the deceased suffered dementia and lacked financial capacity while living with the respondent.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the deceased retained capacity to make financial decisions until shortly before his death and that the respondent did not misappropriate funds.

Evidence showed expenditures were broadly consistent with the deceased’s spending habits and the respondent gained no personal financial benefit.

The court dismissed the request to remove the trustee, declined to order repayment to the estate, and refused to compel a passing of accounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that several Guatemalan defendants were properly served with a fresh statement of claim outside Ontario or, alternatively, an order validating service.

The proceeding alleged a $400 million conspiracy and fraud causing damage in Ontario.

The court considered Rules 17.02 and 17.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing service outside Ontario in non‑contracting states under the Hague Service Convention.

The court held that where the foreign jurisdiction is not a contracting state, parties may serve originating process using Ontario service rules rather than the foreign state's service regime.

Personal service on corporate defendants was valid, and service on individual defendants was validated under rule 16.08 because the claim came to their attention despite attempts to evade service.