Stay of proceedings

The applicant, a self-represented litigant incarcerated in a foreign prison, sought state-appointed counsel or amicus and a stay of proceedings pending such appointment in connection with his application for leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his applications to stay and terminate a U.S. forfeiture order enforceable in Canada under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The motion judge applied the three-part test from s. 684(1) of the Criminal Code by analogy, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate insufficient means, lacked arguable grounds of appeal given that his claims constituted collateral attacks on American judgments and Canadian court rulings, and demonstrated exceptional ability to effectively advance his appeal without counsel.

The motion was dismissed, though the Crown was directed to provide logistical support for filing materials.

The moving parties (respondents in the bankruptcy applications) sought to stay the bankruptcy applications brought by the responding party bank.

The bank had demanded repayment of personal lines of credit that were used to fund the moving parties' corporate entities, which were under CCAA protection.

The court granted the stay, finding that the bank was acting as a single creditor without special circumstances justifying a bankruptcy order.

Furthermore, the court held that the claims were captured by the broad stay of proceedings issued in the CCAA proceedings.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, National Bank of Canada moved to lift the stay of proceedings to appoint a receiver over four real estate properties for which it was the first-ranking mortgage lender.

The applicants and the Monitor opposed the appointment, arguing that the existing sales process under the Real Estate Protocol was functioning well and that appointing a new court officer would add unnecessary costs without significant benefit.

The court dismissed the motion to appoint a receiver, finding it was not just or convenient, but granted a Rent Enforcement Order allowing net rents to be paid to the moving party.

The court also granted a sealing order for the property appraisals to protect the integrity of the ongoing sales process.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action and refer the dispute to arbitration in Dubai, relying on the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017.

The dispute involved a shareholding agreement for a radiology clinic in Dubai, which contained an arbitration clause, and a related one-page guarantee document.

The court found that the claims arguably fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator should determine their own jurisdiction.

The motion was granted and the action was stayed.

The Penfound Parties moved to lift a permanent stay of their claims and counterclaims, which had been imposed after they improperly accessed the Sprott Parties' privileged documents.

They sought the appointment of a litigation receiver and manager, arguing this constituted a material change in circumstances that would detoxify the litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed remedy was not a new circumstance but an argument that could have been raised during the original stay motion.

The court held that issue estoppel precluded relitigating the appropriate remedy, and regardless, a receiver could not effectively cure the prejudice caused by the moving parties' knowledge of privileged information.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage commenced an action against the defendants, including a court-appointed receiver, for unpaid commissions related to the sale of a property.

The receiver and the debtor company moved to stay the action pursuant to the receivership Appointment Order, while the plaintiff moved to lift the stay.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, based on an email exchange regarding a draft commission agreement, were not frivolous or vexatious.

Balancing the relative prejudice to the parties, the court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow the plaintiff's action to continue.

Preliminary motions regarding the evidentiary record were decided in favour of the receiver.

The parties attended a case conference regarding the respondent father's request to review the parenting schedule.

The respondent had failed to pay over $250,000 in child support arrears and $31,735 in costs from prior orders, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction because he lived in Pennsylvania.

The court found that the respondent's blatant refusal to comply with financial orders went to his ability to act in the children's best interests.

Relying on Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court stayed the proceedings until the respondent paid the outstanding costs, and permitted the applicant mother to bring motions for security for costs and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging that police unlawfully intercepted calls between him and his lawyers during a wiretap investigation, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that while two of the three impugned calls did not violate the authorization's minimization terms, one call to the applicant's lawyer was unlawfully intercepted.

However, the court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the wiretap evidence under sections 24(1) or 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was isolated and did not impact trial fairness.

Instead, the court ordered a mandatory injunction requiring the police to implement new protocols for blocking lawyers' phone numbers upon a target's arrest.

Following a conviction for trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from a controlled purchase by an undercover police officer, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The police had received an anonymous tip providing a nickname and phone number allegedly linked to a drug dealer.

An undercover officer called the number and requested to purchase cocaine, after which the accused offered to sell both cocaine and heroin and arranged a meeting where the transaction occurred.

The court held that the officer’s initial phone contact constituted a legitimate investigative step within a bona fide inquiry and that the accused’s responses confirmed involvement in drug trafficking.

The applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that police conduct amounted to entrapment or an abuse of process.

In a high‑conflict custody dispute, the father brought an emergency motion seeking a declaration that the Superior Court custody trial should proceed notwithstanding a child protection application commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice by a child through counsel.

The mother cross‑moved seeking adjournment, involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and consideration of the children’s wishes.

The court found the protection proceeding appeared to be a tactical attempt to delay the scheduled custody trial and concluded the best interests of the children required prompt resolution of the family dispute.

The court held the protection application did not automatically stay the custody trial and declined to adjourn the trial.

However, the court declined to stay the protection proceeding itself, leaving that determination to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of proceeds of crime arising from undercover drug purchases.

The defence sought a stay of proceedings based on lost evidence relating to the undercover officer’s cell phone number and related records.

The court held that although the police failed to properly record and preserve the phone number, the loss did not result in irremediable prejudice or justify a stay under the principles governing lost evidence and abuse of process.

The identification evidence, including two face‑to‑face drug transactions, a photographic lineup, and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the apartment associated with the dealer, was sufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt despite flaws in the lineup procedure.

The defendants requested that the court consider dismissing the plaintiff’s action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that it appeared frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged that publicly traded shares he purchased were associated with secret trust accounts holding millions of dollars in investment returns, which the defendants had failed to pay to him.

The court found no plausible basis in the pleadings or attached documents to support the existence of such trust accounts or any connection between them and the defendants.

Concluding that the claim appeared frivolous on its face, the court directed that the plaintiff provide written submissions explaining why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The proceeding was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of the right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter due to missing police notes and investigative materials in a historical sexual assault prosecution.

The defence argued that the loss of notes from several investigating officers and the absence of photo lineup materials impaired the ability to challenge the investigation.

The court applied the principles governing lost evidence from R. v. La and related jurisprudence, considering whether the evidence was relevant, whether its loss resulted from unacceptable negligence, and whether the accused suffered actual prejudice.

The court concluded that the substance of the allegedly missing evidence was preserved through existing reports, testimony, and other documentation, and that the missing materials were either irrelevant or duplicated elsewhere.

No prejudice to the ability to make full answer and defence was established and no Charter breach occurred.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel due to a conflict of interest after the same lawyer had represented both an accused and a key Crown witness who later provided incriminating statements.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the witness’s evidence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, arguing police inducements and delayed disclosure compromised their fair trial rights.

The court found that while police comments undermining the witness’s confidence in her lawyer were inappropriate, the accused could not rely on alleged Charter breaches affecting the witness, and no actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence was established.

The court declined to grant a stay or exclude the witness’s evidence but held the conflict required removal of counsel.

The accused would need to obtain new counsel and a new trial date.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to compel the defendants to participate in binding arbitration, appoint an arbitrator, and stay the court action pending arbitration arising from a commercial services contract.

The contract containing the arbitration clause was between the plaintiff and one defendant only, while the action also named a second defendant who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

The court held that under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 a party who commenced a court proceeding cannot move for a stay of that proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The court further found that compelling arbitration against only one defendant while staying the action against the other would risk multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The motion was dismissed and the matter allowed to proceed in a single court proceeding.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application under s. 24(2) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The charges arose from a search warrant execution that resulted in drug trafficking and proceeds of crime allegations.

The total delay from arrest to the scheduled trial date was approximately 23 months.

The court held that most delay prior to committal was inherent or attributable to co‑accused difficulties in retaining counsel and scheduling pre‑trial proceedings, which was neutral delay.

The institutional delay of approximately 10 months in the Superior Court was within acceptable guidelines and the alleged prejudice from the death of a potential defence witness was not causally connected to any Crown or institutional delay.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents injured in a motor vehicle accident in New York, sued the New York driver and their Ontario insurer in Ontario.

The defendant driver moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing there were no presumptive connecting factors under the real and substantial connection test articulated in Van Breda.

The plaintiffs argued that their Ontario automobile insurance contract created a connecting factor and alternatively relied on the doctrine of forum of necessity due to alleged inadmissibility into the United States arising from a criminal record.

The court held that the insurance contract was not connected to the tort claim against the foreign defendant and therefore could not establish jurisdiction.

The court further held the plaintiffs failed to prove that litigation in New York was impossible or unreasonable, rejecting application of the forum of necessity doctrine.

The action was stayed against the foreign defendant.

The accused brought a motion seeking a stay of proceedings alleging violations of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter and the right to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7.

The motion also alleged an abuse of process arising from the Crown’s repudiation of a resolution agreement previously reached between the parties.

The court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings.

Detailed reasons for the dismissal were to be provided at a later date.

A partnership sought the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1991 following the withdrawal of a former partner and the issuance of a notice of arbitration alleging breaches of the partnership agreement.

The former partner moved to stay the arbitration pending resolution of a separate civil action involving other former partners and raised counterclaims challenging the validity of provisions in the partnership agreement.

The court held that the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement was broad and that the disputes raised by the partnership clearly fell within its scope.

The court found that the respondent’s counterclaim in the civil action was a colourable attempt to sidetrack the arbitration and that the issues could properly be determined by an arbitrator.

The motion to stay the arbitration was dismissed, the respondent’s counterclaim in the civil action was stayed, and the court appointed an arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991.

A defendant in a defamation action moved to dismiss or stay the proceeding due to the plaintiff’s failure to pay prior costs awards totaling $46,500 from a pleadings motion and $25,000 from an appeal.

The plaintiff deposed that she had paid $35,000 to certain other defendants and was currently impecunious while residing outside the jurisdiction.

The court recognized its broad discretion regarding non-payment of costs and noted the appellate court had characterized the claim as arguable.

Given that the action remained at the pleadings stage and another motion to strike the amended claim was pending, the court found the request premature.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to a potential future motion for security for costs.