Stay of proceedings

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action based on a mandatory arbitration clause in the base trade credit insurance policy.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, relying on a Canadian endorsement that permitted an action against the insurer in Canada and stated that endorsements prevail in the event of a conflict.

The court found that the contract, read as a whole, provided alternative methods for dispute resolution and that the endorsement prevailed over the base policy's arbitration clause.

The motion to stay the action was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's oppression application and to release funds held in trust from the sale of a corporate property.

The parties were bound by a shareholder agreement containing a broad arbitration clause.

The applicant argued the dispute involved fraud and third-party creditor claims that fell outside the arbitration clause.

The court found the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the disputes, including allegations of oppressive conduct and fraud, and stayed the application.

The court also ordered the release of $150,000 from the trust funds to the respondents for living expenses and arbitration funding, plus an amount to cover capital gains tax.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and dismiss the counterclaim of the subject defendants due to their failure to pay prior costs awards and answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court declined to strike the pleadings immediately, opting instead to give the defendants one final opportunity to comply.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings until the defendants pay the outstanding costs and answer the undertakings by specified deadlines, failing which their pleadings will be struck without further notice.

The applicant, charged in 2013 with a 1976 murder, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence.

The lost evidence included the notes of thirteen police officers, an audiotaped confession by a third-party suspect, a videotaped recantation by that suspect, and various occurrence reports.

The court found that the deliberate destruction of police notes and the unexplained loss of the recordings constituted unacceptable negligence, breaching the applicant's section 7 Charter rights.

Concluding that the cumulative prejudice irreparably harmed the applicant's ability to make full answer and defence, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

The applicant commenced a civil application seeking to stay ongoing criminal charges against him, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The respondents requested the court review the application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that seeking to stay ongoing criminal proceedings via a civil claim appears to be an abuse of process on its face, as the applicant could seek relief within the criminal proceedings.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice that it is considering dismissing the application and stayed the proceeding pending the applicant's written submissions.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 51 months.

After deducting 15.5 months of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay was 35.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or justify the delay based on reasonable reliance on the previous state of the law.

The court found the delay unconstitutional and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The bankrupt, a lawyer, made an assignment in bankruptcy but concealed it for years while an estate trustee sued him for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation, eventually obtaining a default judgment.

The bankrupt later sought to rely on the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to avoid the judgment and subsequent costs orders.

The court dismissed the bankrupt's motion and granted the estate trustee's motion, finding that the claim was too remote and speculative to be a provable claim in bankruptcy.

Alternatively, the court held the debt would survive bankruptcy under s. 178 due to the bankrupt's misappropriation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, and that it would be equitable to lift the stay under s. 69.4 given the bankrupt's egregious conduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion to stay the defendant's motion to set aside a default judgment until the defendant paid outstanding costs orders and posted security for costs.

The defendant had made an assignment in bankruptcy, staying the enforcement of pre-bankruptcy costs orders.

The only remaining costs order, made by a registrar in bankruptcy, was under appeal.

The court held that the appeal automatically stayed the registrar's costs order under Rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

As no costs were currently payable, the plaintiff's motion for a stay and security for costs was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action against the defendant regarding a Facebook post.

The defendant brought an Anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and subsequently delivered a statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiff moved to strike the pleading, arguing it violated the stay of proceedings under s. 137.1(5), which prohibits further steps once an Anti-SLAPP motion is made.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that delivering a defence is necessary to satisfy the requirement under s. 137.1(4) to show a valid defence, and therefore does not violate the stay.

The plaintiff sued the defendant cafe for $140,000, alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code after the cafe allegedly refused to provide a glass with ice to the plaintiff's hearing-disabled friend.

The plaintiff also alleged various building and fire code violations.

The defendant requested a dismissal under Rule 2.1.01.

The court found that the claim appeared on its face to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, as the plaintiff pleaded no basis to sue for insults to his friend or for building standard violations, and human rights complaints belong before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01 and stayed the action pending the written hearing.

The moving parties brought a motion for contempt against the responding party, a judgment debtor, for failing to answer written interrogatories.

The court previously found the responding party in contempt and adjourned sentencing to allow him to purge.

The court found that the responding party's subsequent answers were inadequate, obfuscating, and failed to provide key financial information, rejecting his claims that poor health prevented compliance.

As a penalty, the court prohibited the responding party from taking any steps in this or related litigation until the contempt is purged.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 48 months, well above the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown's reliance on the previous state of the law was unreasonable, particularly given the accused's continuous pre-trial custody and the Crown's failure to mitigate delay caused by its own unavailability.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The plaintiffs brought an omnibus motion for certification, settlement approval, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honoraria in a class action against 407 ETR.

The action alleged that 407 ETR unlawfully used the plate denial remedy against insolvent vehicle owners, contrary to the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes and approved a settlement fund of $7,965,800, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's 30% contingency fee and a $10,000 honorarium for each of the three representative plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, the respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

Before costs were decided, the applicant made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The respondent argued that the costs should be characterized as spousal support so they would survive bankruptcy and be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court rejected this argument, noting that spousal support was never an issue in the proceedings and retroactively characterizing the claims would be an inappropriate end run around the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court declined to fix costs, without prejudice to the respondent renewing her request if she obtains a declaration lifting the bankruptcy stay.

The applicant, charged with child pornography and luring offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay was approximately 43 months.

After deducting defence delay and discrete events, the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

However, applying the transitional exceptional circumstances framework, the court found the delay was justified under the previous Morin guidelines.

The application was dismissed.

A case conference was held regarding an application by a purchaser for the return of a $430,000 deposit from a failed real estate auction, and a related action by the auctioneer for its commission.

The court ordered a consent interpleader allowing the auctioneer's counsel to pay the deposit into court.

The court also set a timetable for a cross-application by the auctioneer and stayed the related action pending the outcome of the applications.

The father brought a motion to hold the mother in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the timely sale of their jointly owned New York property.

The mother brought a cross-motion to stay all future proceedings by the father until he paid outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the prior orders did not clearly and unequivocally require the mother to sell the property immediately, but rather permitted her to sign documents to facilitate a sale without the father's consent.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, staying the father's future motions until he satisfied his outstanding costs obligations.

The respondent, facing a first-degree murder charge, subpoenaed a federal Crown counsel who had previously stayed a drug charge against him.

The respondent sought to question the Crown counsel about his reasons for staying the charge to support an abuse of process argument regarding the admission of disreputable conduct evidence.

The Crown counsel brought a certiorari application to quash the subpoena.

The Superior Court held that while the court clerk properly issued the subpoena based on defence counsel's representations, the subpoena must be quashed because the respondent failed to establish that the Crown counsel likely had material evidence to give, as prosecutorial discretion is presumed to be exercised properly absent evidence of bad faith.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay the defendant's counterclaim pending the payment of approximately $138,000 in costs from previous unsuccessful motions, or alternatively, for an order requiring payment by a specific date.

The defendant sought an extension of 45 days to pay the costs, citing financial difficulties and an upcoming commercial closing that would provide funds.

The court balanced the need to enforce its orders with the context of the complex litigation and granted the defendant's request for an extension.

The court ordered that if the costs were not paid by the extended deadline, the counterclaim would be stayed.

Following a finding of guilt for drug trafficking and related offences, the defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment.

The defendant argued that the police provided him with an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police were legitimately following up on a confidential informant's tip and that the defendant's own responses to an undercover officer's initial inquiries established the requisite reasonable suspicion before any opportunity to traffic was offered.