J. Wadden

In a costs endorsement following a security-for-costs motion, the court considered competing claims under Rules 49.10 and 49.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding parties argued their settlement offers attracted mandatory costs consequences, while the moving party sought full partial-indemnity costs as successful party.

The court held the offers were not equivalent or more favourable than the prior order and therefore did not trigger Rule 49.10, but gave them weight under Rule 49.13.

Given divided success and proportionality, the court reduced the amount claimed and fixed costs payable to the moving party.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a Chinese arbitral award against the respondent for unpaid automotive parts.

The respondent opposed, arguing it was denied the opportunity to present its case when the arbitral tribunal refused its request to retain appraisers, and that enforcement would violate public policy.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding the tribunal's procedural decisions did not offend basic notions of justice and the public policy exception was not met.

The court also struck out portions of the respondent's affidavit evidence as inadmissible hearsay and strongly reprimanded the applicant's counsel for uncivil courtroom behaviour.

The court heard three service and pleadings-related motions in a complex fraud action.

The defendant Mark Gross successfully moved to set aside a prior ex parte order validating service on him, arguing the claims against him were intertwined with insolvent corporate defendants and should be addressed in commercial list insolvency proceedings.

Three numbered company defendants successfully moved to set aside their noting in default, as they had not been given notice of the default proceedings while a motion to validate service on them was pending.

The plaintiffs' motion to validate service was granted for the numbered companies and one individual defendant who had actual notice, but dismissed regarding other defendants due to insufficient evidence of notice or efforts to serve.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of documents, answers to refused questions, and re-attendance for further examinations of several defendants and a non-party witness following cross-examinations on an affidavit and examinations under Rule 39.03.

The examinations were conducted in the context of a pending motion by the defendant Purchaser Corporations to discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The court granted partial relief, ordering the production of share purchase agreements and answers to specific questions regarding corporate control and share transfers, finding them relevant to the bona fides of the property transactions.

The court dismissed the requests for voluminous due diligence documents as overbroad and declined to order re-attendance for further examinations.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim (NAD) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's (HTS) pleadings for delay and failure to produce documents, and sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent HTS from using NAD's trademarks or confusingly similar marks to sell air diffusers.

The court declined to strike HTS's pleadings, giving them one final opportunity to produce a complete Affidavit of Documents.

However, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, finding that NAD established a strong prima facie case of passing off, irreparable harm due to potential market loss and unquantifiable damages, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction despite NAD's delay in bringing the motion.