Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet

The appellants appealed an order that stayed their motion, transferred the proceeding, and awarded costs to the respondents.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion to quash, finding that the order appealed from was interlocutory and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court also noted that the appeal should be quashed due to the appellants' persistent failure to pay outstanding costs orders from previous proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize and enforce a $3 million USD judgment obtained against the defendant in the Superior Court of California.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud based on a newly discovered allegedly forged guarantee, and raised defences of denial of natural justice and public policy.

The court applied the Beals test for recognition of foreign judgments and found the California court properly took jurisdiction.

The court rejected the defendant's fraud defence, finding the allegedly new evidence could have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.

The court granted summary judgment, recognizing and enforcing the California judgment.

The applicant requested an expedited hearing of his human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age.

The request was based on the impending closure of the respondent's only Canadian plant, after which the respondent would have no operations or assets in Canada, potentially rendering any Tribunal order unenforceable.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite the hearing, finding the circumstances urgent.