Stay of proceedings

The appellant appealed an order staying and dismissing his action against the respondents as an abuse of process.

The motion judge found that the appellant's claims were barred by a broad release contained in a Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the CCAA that restructured the Canadian market for Asset-Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the release clearly captured the appellant's claims and that it would be unjust to allow his claim to proceed in isolation after he had participated in the CCAA proceedings and voted in favour of the Plan.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, sued for injuries caused by falling ice from premises in Quebec owned by the respondent.

The motion judge stayed the action for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, finding no real and substantial connection with Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, agreeing that the appellant's financial position and ongoing damages in Ontario were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the motion judge's award disproportionate, and reduced the costs award by half.

The Crown appealed an order staying proceedings on a minor allegation.

The appeal judge had refused to order a new trial and stayed the proceedings, believing the allegations to be trivial.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the appeal judge erred by second-guessing the Crown's prosecutorial discretion.

However, the Court declined to order a new trial, noting the respondent had already appeared in court four times at personal expense, the allegation was minor, and the Crown had made its legal point.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault after a 48.5-month non-appellate delay.

The application judge found 23 months of delay attributable to the Crown but dismissed the appellant's section 11(b) Charter application, applying the 'clearest of cases' standard and finding no prejudice to trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in law, as a stay is the mandatory minimal remedy for a section 11(b) breach and proof of actual prejudice to trial fairness is not required.

The Court upheld the attribution of delay to the Crown, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered a stay of proceedings.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a 'Guarantee/Special Rates/Contract Addendum' was a separate and distinct agreement from the underlying tour operator agreements, and therefore not subject to their forum selection clauses.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the addendum was part and parcel of the tour operator agreements.

Applying the strong cause test from Z.I. Pompey Industrie, the Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the parties' chosen forum of Aruba (and Cuba for one hotel).

The action was permanently stayed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of child pornography, sexual interference, and sexual assault, as well as his sentence.

He argued that the destruction of a videotaped interview prejudiced his right to make full answer and defence, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek a stay, failing to request counselling records, and failing to advance a fabrication defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice from the lost videotape, no merit to the ineffective assistance claims, and no error in the trial judge's consideration of evidence or the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed an extradition committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order to the United States for charges including fraud and theft.

The appellant argued the extradition judge erred by not staying the proceedings due to the requesting state's non-disclosure regarding a witness interview, and by applying the wrong test for committal under the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the extradition judge properly excised the tainted witness evidence rather than staying the proceedings.

Furthermore, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Ferras, the Court confirmed that an extradition judge cannot refuse committal merely because the case is weak, provided there is some available and reliable evidence on each element of the offence.

The appeal and application for judicial review were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay proceedings pursuant to section 7 of the Arbitration Act.

The parties had previously signed a consent to attend mediation/arbitration.

After mediation failed, the appellant refused to proceed to arbitration and returned to court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ambiguity in the term 'mediation/arbitration' and concluding that the motion judge did not err in finding a valid agreement to arbitrate.

The appellant, an Ontario corporation, sought to enjoin an Israeli bank from drawing upon a letter of credit issued by a Canadian bank in Ontario.

The motion judge stayed the action, finding that Israel was the more convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while Ontario had jurisdiction, the motion judge did not err in concluding that Israel was the more convenient forum given that the majority of witnesses and evidence were located there, and the factual matters in dispute arose in Israel.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the stay was just over 14 months, with 12 months of institutional delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in assessing actual prejudice, including psychological harm, strict bail conditions, and additional expenses.

The Court also agreed that the offer of 'Blitz Court' dates did not shorten the systemic period in this case.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an informal committee of senior debenture holders, sought leave to appeal orders made by the supervising judge in a CCAA restructuring.

The orders authorized the debtor company to enter into agreements with stakeholders and a finance provider to facilitate a proposed plan of arrangement.

The appellant argued the judge lacked jurisdiction to make orders that entrenched elements of a plan before creditor approval and that the plan was doomed to fail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the supervising judge had broad jurisdiction under s. 11 of the CCAA to move the restructuring process forward, provided the creditors retained their final right to vote on the plan under s. 6.

The unrepresented appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the Crown's cross-examination was improper and that the trial judge failed to provide limiting instructions regarding his conspiracy theory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the Crown improperly cross-examined the appellant on extraneous matters and his failure to deny allegations in-chief.

The trial judge also failed to instruct the jury on the limited use of the appellant's conspiracy theory.

The appeal was allowed, but a stay of proceedings was entered as the appellant had already served his sentence and this would be his fourth trial.

The defendants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay a proposed class action in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was precluded by s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the motions judge's decision was interlocutory because she deferred the final determination of whether the dispute should be arbitrated to the certification stage of the class proceeding.

As the order was not final, s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act applied to bar the appeal.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondents, who were charged with first-degree murder in the death of their infant daughter.

The trial judge stayed the charges due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, largely caused by the failings of the Crown's pathologist.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in including pre-charge delay in his calculation as a remedy for the cremation of the child's remains.

However, the Court upheld the stay, concluding that the post-charge delay of 55 months for one respondent and 42.5 months for the other was unreasonable and severely prejudiced their liberty and security interests.

The appellants sought to lift a stay of proceedings under the CCAA to terminate long-term gas supply contracts with the insolvent respondent.

They argued the contracts were 'eligible financial contracts' (EFCs) under s. 11.1(1) of the CCAA, which would exempt them from the stay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal, finding the contracts lacked the hallmarks of financial risk management required to be EFCs.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the contracts were EFCs, the appellants could not terminate them because the contract terms only allowed termination for non-payment, and the respondent was not in default.

The appellants, Ontario defendants, sought to stay proceedings in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing there were parallel proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash and the appeal, noting the remarkable feature that the Ontario defendants sought to stay proceedings in their home jurisdiction while their U.S. counterpart denied the proceedings were parallel.

The court found a clear juridical advantage for the respondent to proceed in Ontario, where the contracts were offered and the defendants' assets were located.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay charges against the respondents due to a 33-month delay, which breached their s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the delay was unacceptable and reflected a culture that failed to prioritize timely trial dates.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment and the refusal of a stay of proceedings by the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's analysis or exercise of discretion under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

Dalimpex Ltd. appealed a Divisional Court order staying its civil action against Agros and others pending arbitration in Poland, and a Superior Court judgment provisionally recognizing a Polish arbitral award in favour of Agros.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first appeal, holding that the identity of the arbitral tribunal and the scope of the arbitration clause were matters best left to the arbitral tribunal where it is arguable that the dispute falls within the agreement.

The Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the provisional judgment and adjourning the enforcement application pending the final disposition of Dalimpex's appeal of the arbitral award in the Polish courts.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to grant a stay of proceedings in an oppression remedy case.

They argued that California courts had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion and concluding that the oppression remedy was legitimately sought in Ontario.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondent.