Kate Byers

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Ukrainian corporation seeking to enforce Ukrainian judgments in Ontario.

The plaintiff acknowledged it was not ordinarily resident in Ontario but argued the requested $100,000 was excessive and unjust given the merits of its claim.

The court considered the complex history of the foreign proceedings, allegations of fraud, and the failure of the plaintiff's alleged beneficial owner to post security in related foreign litigation.

Applying principles of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $70,000 as security for costs for the upcoming summary judgment motion.

The accused, Balwinder Dhaliwal, a key member of a criminal organization involved in stealing, re-vinning, and selling motor vehicles, was sentenced following a guilty plea.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the sophisticated nature of the operation, the significant financial value of vehicles involved, multiple victims, and the accused's substantial criminal record for similar offenses.

While the guilty plea was late, it was accepted as a sign of remorse and responsibility, saving court time.

The court accepted a joint submission from counsel.

The plaintiff franchisor sought costs following a successful motion for summary judgment against the defendant franchisee.

The franchise agreement contained a provision entitling the franchisor to costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the indemnity only applied to third-party claims and upheld the commercial bargain.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff franchisor brought an action against the defendant, the sole shareholder of a former corporate franchisee, to recover over $1.7 million in costs awarded to the franchisor in a prior class action commenced by the franchisee.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment relying on an indemnification provision in the franchise agreement and a personal guarantee signed by the defendant.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the defendant personally liable under both the indemnification provision and the guarantee.

The court also dismissed the defendant's cross-motion, rejecting arguments that the claim was statute-barred or previously released.

The appellant brought four related actions against various respondents arising from dealings that occurred primarily in the United States between 2001 and 2016.

The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the actions on the ground that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a real and substantial connection to the province.

The motion judges granted the motions and dismissed all actions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ontario jurisdiction existed based on: (1) consulting contracts allegedly entered into at Toronto airport; (2) products being advertised, marketed, and distributed in Ontario; and (3) respondents carrying on business in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and affirming that mere advertising or distribution through third-party retailers does not constitute carrying on business in the jurisdiction.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, citing enforceable forum selection clauses, a lack of real and substantial connection between the litigation and Ontario, and abuse of process due to prior arbitration and litigation in California concerning the same subject matter.

The plaintiffs, largely self-represented, opposed the motion.

The court found that the forum selection clauses were valid and enforceable, Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as no presumptive connecting factors were established, and allowing the action to proceed would constitute an abuse of process given the prior resolutions in California.

The action was dismissed, and a sealing order was granted to protect confidential commercial information.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to invalidate Full and Final Releases she signed and a Notice of Discontinuance against two former lawyers, alleging they acted contrary to her instructions or mistakenly.

The court found that a settlement agreement existed, and the lawyers had ostensible authority to effect it.

Considering factors for setting aside a settlement, including the significant delay by the plaintiff in challenging the settlement and the public policy favoring enforcement of settlements, the court dismissed the motion.