K. Baert

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that refused to strike out several paragraphs of the defendant's statement of defence.

The underlying action involved the recognition and enforcement of a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment.

The defendant pleaded defences of fraud, public policy, and lack of natural justice, alleging the foreign judgment was ghostwritten and obtained through bribery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the pleaded defences were recognized in law and not plainly and obviously bound to fail.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order to the Divisional Court, while simultaneously filing an appeal with the Court of Appeal due to uncertainty over whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The defendants requested that the motion for leave to appeal be adjourned sine die pending the Court of Appeal's determination.

The court granted the defendants' request, holding that where simultaneous proceedings are launched in two different courts over the same issue, the proceeding in the lower court should be held in abeyance to conserve judicial resources.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that stayed their proposed class action (the Labourers Action) and granted carriage to a competing proposed class action (the DALI Action).

The underlying actions alleged securities misrepresentations by Barrick Gold Corporation.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's approach to assessing the complexity of claims and the state of preparation conflicted with established case law and provided good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.