J. E. Mills

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a CIETAC arbitral award issued in China.

The respondent resisted enforcement on the grounds of incapacity and public policy, alleging that he signed the underlying repayment agreement under threat, coercion, and mental distress.

The court held that those allegations had already been raised before and rejected by the arbitral tribunal, and that the respondent's position amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the award.

Applying the limited refusal grounds under the New York Convention and Model Law, the court found no viable basis to deny enforcement and granted judgment in accordance with the award.

The accused, charged with sexual assault against his former spouse, sought directions on whether affidavits filed by the complainant in their family law proceedings constituted 'records' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the affidavits contained personal information and required scrutiny under the s. 278 regime.

The court held that the affidavits were not records, as they were voluntarily filed in public adversarial proceedings, meaning the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them.

Consequently, a s. 278.93 application was not required for their use.

The plaintiffs brought a motion requiring the defendants, as Estate Trustees, to pass the accounts.

After six adjournments, the plaintiffs requested a further deferral to address unanswered questions.

The court declined to prolong the matter, noting the depletion of estate assets, and dismissed the motion on a without prejudice basis.

The plaintiffs also consented to dismiss the claim against one defendant.

The court awarded costs of $5,100 for the dismissed claim and $16,156.27 for the motion to the defendants, payable forthwith by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiff acted as an agent in Korea for the defendant.

After their relationship deteriorated, the parties signed a Payment Agreement acknowledging outstanding commissions owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant partially paid but then ceased payments.

The plaintiff sued for the remaining balance.

The court found the Payment Agreement to be a binding contract and awarded the plaintiff USD $232,330.44.

The defendant's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of damages.

The court limited pre-judgment interest to three years due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The applicant was largely successful on a motion regarding child support and financial disclosure.

The respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by persistently refusing to provide full and frank financial disclosure, thereby unnecessarily driving up litigation costs.

The applicant also beat her offer to settle.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $70,000, characterized as child support for enforcement purposes.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident where he abruptly stopped to avoid downed guy wires caused by the defendants' snow plow.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered electrocution and permanent, debilitating headaches.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and uncorroborated, concluding he suffered only soft tissue injuries that resolved within two years.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the non-pecuniary claims for failing to meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act was granted.

The claims for past and future income loss were also dismissed as the plaintiff had been fully compensated by prior benefits.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to secure his claimed right to purchase a 45-acre commercial property.

The parties had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale that was amended multiple times to extend due diligence and closing dates.

The defendant purported to terminate the agreement, leading the plaintiff to sue for specific performance.

The court found several triable issues regarding the closing date, deposit requirements, and purchase price, and concluded the plaintiff had a reasonable claim to an interest in the unique property.

The motion for a CPL was granted.

The defendant Mondconsult sought leave to amend its Statement of Defence and Crossclaim to add a breach of contract claim against co-defendant 7 Brighton for failing to obtain wrap-up insurance. 7 Brighton opposed the motion, arguing the amendment introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period.

The court found the proposed amendment was a new claim and that Mondconsult, with reasonable diligence, ought to have discovered the failure to obtain insurance when served with the Statement of Claim over three years prior.

The motion was dismissed as the claim was statute-barred.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission brought a motion to lift the stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue actions enforcing foreign judgments against the bankrupt and the debtor.

The moving party argued the judgments arose from fraud or misappropriation and would survive discharge under s. 178(1).

The respondents opposed, citing a recent US Supreme Court decision and limitation period defences.

The court granted the motion, finding a fair issue to be tried regarding the limitation periods and the nature of the claims, but ordered that no enforcement steps be taken without further leave.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to restore their motor vehicle accident action to the trial list after it was administratively struck.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss for delay.

The court found a history of inattention and missed deadlines by the plaintiffs' former counsel, with no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court also found the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded, as discoveries were incomplete and evidence had not been preserved.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the action was left to be administratively dismissed.