Stay of proceedings

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay its application in favour of arbitration.

The dispute arose from a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding tobacco smuggling, which contained an arbitration clause.

The appellant sought declarations regarding whether a class action brought by a tobacco board constituted a released claim under the agreement, affecting the respondent's right to escrow settlement payments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that while the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine issues under section 7 of the agreement, the court must determine issues under section 15 because the tobacco board was not a party to the arbitration agreement and its rights were directly implicated.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to stay the respondents' action based on an exclusive forum selection clause in their agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the clause applied, the respondents had shown 'strong cause' not to enforce it.

The court noted the appellant's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue, its inconsistent positions, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts between Canada and the United States.

The appellant, a former executive and minority shareholder, sued the respondents in Ontario for wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, and oppression.

The motions judge denied the appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the respondents' motion to stay the action based on an exclusive forum selection clause in a Shareholders' Agreement favouring England.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the denial of summary judgment but set aside the stay.

The Court found that the motions judge erred by ignoring a non-exclusive Ontario forum selection clause in the appellant's Service Agreement and by failing to consider that the respondents had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by defending the action on the merits and counterclaiming before invoking the English forum selection clause.

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 appellant sued its insurance brokers (the respondents) for leaving it underinsured and for negligence in failing to assist with settling its insurance claim.

The respondents claimed indemnification from the third-party insurer.

The motion judge stayed both the main action and the third-party claim because the appellant had signed a release in favour of the insurer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay for the underinsured claim, finding that the third-party claim for indemnification was incompatible with the main action and could not succeed.

However, the stay remained for the negligence claim regarding the settlement.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted on the basis that the respondent's s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated.

The respondent was charged following a complex gang investigation.

After a mistrial, the application judge found the cumulative 41-month delay unreasonable, attributing significant portions to the Crown.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred by failing to characterize significant periods of delay in the Superior Court of Justice as neutral, including intake periods and delay caused by the mistrial.

Properly characterized, the institutional delay was within the Morin guidelines and not unreasonable.

The moving party, Aecon Buildings, brought a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the lower court's order denying a stay of the action for abuse of process (based on an alleged champertous agreement) was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the lower court's decision finally determined a claim that could have ended the action in favour of the appellant, making it a final order subject to appeal.

The mother appealed a motion judge's order finding her in contempt for failing to encourage the child's relationship with the father and taking active steps to discourage it.

The mother argued the motion judge erred by proceeding despite dispute resolution clauses and her request for a stay due to the father's financial non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not err in proceeding with the urgent matter involving high conflict and alleged parental alienation.

The Court also upheld the contempt finding, noting there was ample evidence, including the mother's own admissions, to support it.

The accused was charged with sex-related offences.

At trial, the judge stayed the proceedings because a portion of the complainant's preliminary inquiry testimony was lost due to a defective recording tape, finding a breach of the accused's s. 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by applying the Carosella test instead of the La test for lost evidence.

Since the Crown provided a satisfactory explanation for the loss, the accused had to establish actual prejudice, which he failed to do given the availability of the complainant, full disclosure, and alternative means to explore inconsistencies.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellants, representing unionized and non-unionized former employees of Nortel, appealed a decision dismissing their motions for directions to compel Nortel to pay severance, termination, and retirement benefits during its CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued that the payments were protected under s. 11.3(a) of the CCAA as compensation for ongoing services, and that the CCAA stay could not override provincial Employment Standards Act obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the payments were for past services and that the doctrine of federal paramountcy allowed the CCAA stay to suspend the immediate payment obligations under the provincial legislation to facilitate the restructuring.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of shares he would acquire upon employment.

The defendants sought to stay the action, arguing the dispute should be referred to arbitration pursuant to a shareholders' agreement and the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The application judge refused the stay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the dispute was not 'commercial' in nature and did not arise out of a 'transaction' as defined in the shareholders' agreement, thus falling outside the scope of the arbitration clause.

The appellant, a Canadian pig producer, appealed an order dismissing its motion for an anti-suit injunction and granting a stay of its Ontario action against a Russian corporation.

The appellant sought to avoid an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Moscow, alleging the respondent's CEO made death threats against its chief operating officer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the injunction issues moot as the arbitration had already occurred.

The court upheld the stay of the Ontario action, concluding the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the appellant's related tort claims.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings due to a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of delay, complexity, and prejudice.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed based on fresh evidence, and the conditional sentence was reduced to 15 months with varied terms.

The respondent was charged with sexual assault.

On the scheduled trial date, no court was available, and the trial was adjourned for eight months.

The trial judge subsequently stayed the charge, finding a violation of s. 11(b) of the Charter due to institutional delay.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to conduct the required Morin analysis and ignored the societal interest in a trial on the merits and the lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The stay was vacated and the matter remitted for trial.

The appellant moved to reinstate his appeal, which had been dismissed as abandoned for failure to post security for costs.

He explained his previous lack of funds, justified the delay, and demonstrated the appeal was not frivolous.

The respondents noted a Superior Court order staying all proceedings by the appellant without leave.

The Court of Appeal exercised its jurisdiction under s. 13(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to grant leave and ordered the appeal reinstated upon the posting of the required security.

The appellants appealed an order staying their entire proceeding pending the corporate revival of one of the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge had the discretion to stay the entire proceeding in the interests of efficiency, as it was preferable for both plaintiffs' actions to proceed together.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown should not have been permitted to cross-examine the appellant on statements that had not been proven voluntary, as there was no clear waiver of a voir dire.

The trial judge had relied on these statements to impugn the appellant's credibility.

Furthermore, the court found the verdict unreasonable regarding 24 bills found in another person's home, as there was insufficient evidence of control.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were set aside.

Given that the appellant had already served over a year of his sentence, a stay of proceedings was entered.

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 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.