Jordan Goldblatt

The moving party sought a declaration that the bankrupt's debt to it, arising from a US judgment for trademark infringement enforced in Ontario, not be released upon his discharge from bankruptcy.

The court found that the bankrupt had obtained property by false pretences by selling counterfeit goods on Amazon.

Applying section 178(1)(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court held that the debt survives the bankruptcy discharge, rejecting the bankrupt's public policy arguments regarding the quantum of statutory damages.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sought commission from the corporate defendants after an initial agreement of purchase and sale was terminated during the due diligence period, and a subsequent agreement was entered into by a different corporate entity.

The court held a mini-trial to determine the ownership of the corporations, the intentionality of terminating the first agreement, and the circumstances of the second agreement.

The court found that the two corporations were separate legal entities with different investors, the first agreement was terminated legitimately due to unsatisfactory due diligence, and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to attend an examination for discovery with accommodations, arguing his medical condition (vascular malformation and conversion disorder) made him physically unable to attend without serious risk of harm.

The plaintiff also appealed the Master's costs award, arguing the Master was functus officio when extending the time for the defendant's costs submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Master made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the medical evidence and had the discretion to extend the time for costs submissions before a formal order was entered.

The plaintiff, a corporate entity managing a sports facility, brought an action against several soccer associations for negligence and intentional interference with economic relations (unlawful means tort).

The claims arose from the issuance of International Transfer Certificates for two players, the non-approval of an invitational tournament, and communications regarding unsanctioned indoor soccer leagues.

The court dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the associations, as the plaintiff was not a member and had actively distanced itself from them.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of unlawful acts against third parties or intent to harm the plaintiff, and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The defendant, a blogger reporting on municipal affairs, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The plaintiff, a former municipal administrator, sued over blog posts alleging he was dishonest and incompetent.

The court found the posts related to a matter of public interest but concluded the defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendant's defences could reasonably be rejected.

The court held that the harm to the plaintiff's reputation and employability outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction freezing the assets of its former employee, who was alleged to have participated in a kickback scheme in Cuba resulting in over $500,000 in misappropriated funds.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing material non-disclosure and lack of risk of asset dissipation.

The court applied the five-part test for a Mareva injunction and found the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case and sufficient risk of dissipation, ordering the injunction to continue.

During a civil jury trial involving claims of negligence and intentional interference with economic interests against various soccer associations, the defendants moved to strike the jury following the plaintiff's closing address.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's counsel made 69 improper statements, including suggesting new legal claims, misstating the jury's role, attempting to adduce new evidence, and misstating the law and evidence.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff's counsel repeatedly crossed the line and that the cumulative effect of the misstatements rendered correction by an appropriate charge impossible.

The motion was granted, the jury was discharged, and the trial judge assumed responsibility for determining liability and damages.

The plaintiff brought an action for defamation after the defendant disseminated anonymous allegations.

The parties settled the action for $10,000 in damages, leaving costs to be determined by the court.

The plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the settlement was less favourable than the offer and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $44,446.26, with the court noting that costs in defamation matters often exceed damages.

The applicants sought urgent judicial review of decisions by the Toronto Soccer Association and Ontario Soccer Association that disqualified a youth girls' soccer team from a championship game, suspended their coach, and fined the league for allegedly playing ineligible 12-year-old players on a 13-year-old team.

The Superior Court of Justice assumed jurisdiction, finding the decisions were of a public nature.

The court set aside the associations' decisions, holding that they breached basic rules of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate notice of the charges and sanctions, and by denying the applicants a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondents due to their reprehensible conduct, including ignoring the court's initial order.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction to register a charge against the defendant's property.

The defendant had anticipatorily breached an agreement of purchase and sale for the plaintiffs' residential property.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case and met the five-part test for a Mareva injunction, noting the defendant had taken her property off the market and was travelling to India with no return date.

The motion was granted.

The plaintiffs successfully defeated the defendant's anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought partial indemnity costs of $43,641.16.

The court considered the presumption in s. 137.1(8) that a successful responding party is not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

The court found that the plaintiffs' defamation claim was weak and appeared to be used strategically to extract a gag order from the defendant.

Given the strategic behaviour of both parties, the court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike several paragraphs of the plaintiffs' Reply under Rule 25.11, arguing they were irrelevant, scandalous, and would prejudice the fair trial.

The plaintiffs also sought leave to amend their Reply to add a new paragraph.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the impugned paragraphs were a proper response to the defendants' pleading of a 'moral and social duty' and 'public interest' in their Statement of Defence.

The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their Reply, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

Following the dismissal of a $200 million class action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $154,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued for a maximum of $60,000, citing the brevity of the hearing and the novelty and public interest of the issues under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court rejected the public interest argument but acknowledged some novelty in the interpretation of the Gift Card Regulation.

Costs were fixed at $110,000 all-inclusive, payable by the plaintiff.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a breach of contract action on the basis that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity because he was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court considered the effect of s. 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the principle that property and causes of action vest in the trustee upon bankruptcy.

The plaintiff argued that the claim related to after-acquired property and could therefore be pursued personally.

The court rejected this argument, holding that an undischarged bankrupt cannot commence or maintain an action concerning property interests vested in the trustee, subject only to narrow statutory exceptions not applicable here.

The action was declared a nullity and dismissed as an abuse of process, prior orders obtained without notice were set aside, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded.

In a certified copyright infringement class action, the representative plaintiff sought court approval of a proposed settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement would have required the defendant to fund a $350,000 cy‑près trust for public interest litigation, modify copyright notices, and receive non‑exclusive copyright licences from class members for court documents included in its legal database.

Individual class members would receive no monetary compensation, while class counsel sought $825,000 in fees.

The court held that the settlement was not fair, reasonable, or in the best interests of the class, emphasizing that it provided minimal benefit to class members while requiring them to grant valuable licences and releases.

The motions for settlement approval and counsel fee approval were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Canadian Pacific Railway Company, sought to convert an interim injunction into a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant truck drivers from picketing and blockading its Vaughan Intermodal Terminal.

The defendants, who were independent contractors for trucking companies serving CPR, had been protesting pay cuts.

Following reports of vandalism and safety concerns, the court found that the plaintiff met the test for an injunction and ordered that the existing interlocutory injunction be made permanent pending trial.