Jonathan Peter Stainsby

The Respondents (Ebrahimi Parties) brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside or vary three prior court orders related to the implementation of Minutes of Settlement, alleging fraud and newly discovered facts.

They also sought a declaration that the Minutes of Settlement were void.

The Applicants (PCCI) brought a cross-motion to enforce the Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted leave to admit new evidence (February 2024 Memo) and found that PCCI's actions in pursuing criminal charges and restitution in Iran, contrary to their obligations under the Minutes of Settlement, constituted a fundamental breach.

Consequently, the court set aside the relevant implementation orders and declared the Minutes of Settlement null and void, dismissing PCCI's enforcement motion.

The court also addressed costs, awarding partial indemnity costs to the Respondents.

The appellants, suspected of defrauding the respondents of over US $71 million, entered into a settlement agreement requiring them to return assets in exchange for the respondents discontinuing various global civil proceedings.

The appellants brought a motion to compel the respondents to also withdraw Interpol Red Notices and discontinue criminal proceedings in Iran, or alternatively to set aside the settlement.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondents only agreed to request the withdrawal of criminal proceedings, as they had no authority to unilaterally dismiss them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the settlement agreement and dismissed the appeal.

The moving parties (respondents in the main action) sought to enforce a settlement agreement or have it declared void ab initio, arguing the responding parties (applicants in the main action) failed to fulfill their obligation to withdraw criminal proceedings in Iran and remove Interpol Red Notices.

The court interpreted the agreement using the principles from Sattva, finding the responding parties only agreed to request the withdrawal and cooperate, as they lacked the authority to compel the independent Iranian Prosecutor or Interpol.

The court rejected expert evidence claiming the responding parties were Iranian government-controlled entities capable of commanding such actions.

The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, a prominent lawyer and political activist, brought a defamation action against the defendant, an internet broadcaster, over videos alleging the plaintiff was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic extremism.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment, holding that the defendant's statements were defamatory and that the defences of fair comment and responsible communication failed because the statements were presented as facts, lacked a factual foundation, and were made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500,000 in general and aggravated damages and granted a permanent injunction requiring the removal of the videos and prohibiting the defendant from making further statements about the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices, and the defendant counterclaimed alleging fraudulent overbilling.

During a case management conference, the court heard from witnesses regarding the billing system to clarify facts.

The defendant subsequently argued these discussions were without prejudice settlement discussions and sought to limit a witness's affidavit.

The court rejected this argument, holding that under the Rules of Civil Procedure and its inherent jurisdiction, it has broad case management powers to make procedural orders and clarify facts to advance the case to a summary trial.

The court ordered the preparation of the affidavit and set a timetable for the summary trial.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a libel action commenced by the plaintiff, the former Chair of the Toronto Port Authority.

The action arose from a statement attributed to the defendant in a magazine article about Porter Airlines.

The court found the statement related to a matter of public interest and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe the proceeding had substantial merit or that the defendant had no valid defence.

The action was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded full indemnity costs of $80,000, but the court declined to award damages for bad faith.

This was a costs endorsement following dismissal of a defendant's motion for security for costs.

The court held that the successful plaintiff was entitled to its partial indemnity costs of the interlocutory motion, rejecting submissions that there should be no costs or that costs be in the cause.

Applying the court's general discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the amount claimed was fair and reasonable, proportionate to the importance of the motion, and within the defendant's reasonable contemplation.

Fixed costs of $7,144.24 inclusive of taxes and disbursements were ordered payable within 30 days.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff opposed, arguing impecuniosity caused by the defendant's failure to pay outstanding invoices.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity due to insufficient financial disclosure.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had a good chance of success on the merits and that its financial difficulties were largely caused by the defendant's refusal to pay approved invoices.

Following a successful appeal that ordered a new trial limited to damages, the appellant sought its costs of the trial.

The Court of Appeal declined to defer the costs assessment until damages were quantified, citing the respondent's reprehensible conduct in rigging bids prior to the litigation.

The court awarded the appellant its trial costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $370,000, after applying a 40% reduction to account for the appellant's lack of success on certain issues.

The court declined to make a distributive costs order in favour of the respondent.

The appellant and respondent worked together to develop an automated attenuator for Lockheed Martin.

The respondent represented to the appellant that it would be the sole supplier.

However, the respondent secretly approached a competitor, rigged the bids to favour the competitor, and the competitor won the contract.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of good faith.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the elements of negligent misrepresentation were met because the respondent negligently continued to represent the appellant as the sole supplier, causing the appellant to rely on this to its detriment.

A new trial was ordered to assess damages.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to stay or dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the dispute did not arise 'in connection with' the Confidentiality Agreement, and therefore the arbitration clause did not apply.

The Court also agreed that there was a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the subject matter of the action, and found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's determination that Ontario was the forum conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent's alleged breach of a confidentiality provision in minutes of settlement did not constitute a fundamental breach.

The appellant conceded there was no fundamental breach but sought a remedy analogous to Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 49.09 did not apply because the settlement was reached via minutes of settlement, not an offer to settle, and the rule does not alter substantive contract law.

However, the Court noted the motion judge erred in finding there was no breach at all, preserving the appellant's right to sue for damages for breach of contract.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment and the refusal of a stay of proceedings by the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's analysis or exercise of discretion under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.