4 total
Action stayed against parent corporation based on forum non conveniens and Delaware forum selection clause.
The defendant parent corporation brought a motion to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's action against it on the basis of forum non conveniens.
The plaintiff, a real estate broker, sued the parent corporation and its Canadian subsidiary for breach of contract and oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
The court found that the parent corporation was not a party to the independent contractor agreement and that the plaintiff's only relationship with it was as a shareholder.
Because the shareholding agreements contained an exclusive forum selection clause in favour of Delaware, and the plaintiff failed to show strong cause why it should not be enforced, the court granted the motion and stayed the action against the parent corporation.
Action stayed in favour of arbitration; plaintiff failed to prove arbitration agreement was invalid or unconscionable.
The defendants moved under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 to stay the plaintiff's action on the basis that the dispute was subject to a mandatory arbitration clause in an Independent Contractor Agreement.
The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid because it required arbitration administered by JAMS, which allegedly created a biased process, was unconscionable, and was incapable of being performed.
The court found that the technical prerequisites for a stay were met and that the plaintiff failed to establish any statutory exceptions, noting the agreement did not restrict the selection of an independent arbitrator.
The motion to stay the action was granted.
The court ordered two similar class actions to be heard consecutively and held that a case management judge cannot preside over summary judgment motions without consent.
Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.
The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.
The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.
However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.
Appeal dismissed; no error in finding France was the more appropriate forum for fraud claim.
The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision finding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum for their fraud claim.
The appellants argued the claim was based on omissions occurring in Ontario.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's conclusion that France was clearly the more appropriate forum.
