K. William McKenzie

The Plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants Zhou and Aguazion Inc. following two successful motions: a Mareva injunction and a variation of that order due to Zhou's fraud and misrepresentation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the first motion, payable in the cause, and substantial indemnity costs for the second motion, fixed at $52,415.07, payable forthwith or from the Alternative Payment of Security Option (APSO) fund.

The judge found Zhou's conduct, including perjury and misleading evidence, warranted serious costs consequences, justifying substantial indemnity for the second motion.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to strike out and declare void Personal Property Security Act registrations filed by the respondent.

The appellant argued that without a signed security agreement, the PPSA registrations were invalid.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the motion judge's order was interlocutory, not final.

The court held that the order did not finally dispose of the real matter in dispute between the parties, which concerned the equipment's deficiencies and the parties' respective obligations, rather than the validity of the security interest itself.

The appeal was quashed with costs, and the appellant was directed to pursue an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment on a promissory note related to the sale of a business.

The motion judge had found the appellant in default, struck the Statement of Defence, and ordered a trial of an issue to determine the net amount owing, to be heard with a related injunction application regarding the seizure and sale of assets.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not precluded from arguing that the seizure and sale were unlawful.

The Court found that striking the Statement of Defence was inconsistent with ordering a trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed in part to reinstate the Statement of Defence and substitute an order finding the appellant in default.

Following a successful summary judgment motion on liability under a promissory note, the court determined costs of the motion.

The moving parties sought full indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct by the opposing party.

The court found that both counsel had engaged in problematic conduct during the motion and that any misconduct was mutual.

Applying the principle that costs generally follow the event absent exceptional circumstances, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful moving parties.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to enforce a promissory note executed in connection with an asset purchase agreement for a recycling business.

The defendant admitted signing the note and acknowledged the outstanding balance but argued that the plaintiffs had waived default, improperly seized collateral, and failed to account for the sale of secured assets.

The court held that no clear waiver or agreement to forbear from enforcing the note was established and that the defendant failed to produce evidence supporting allegations of improper seizure under the Personal Property Security Act.

However, due to ongoing litigation regarding the seizure and disposition of secured assets, the precise amount owing under the note remained uncertain.

Summary judgment on liability was granted, the defence was struck, and the quantum of the debt was ordered to be determined at trial together with the related injunction proceedings.

The mother sought leave to appeal an order severing the father's bankruptcy file from the outstanding family law claims.

The mother argued that a previous case management order had consolidated the matters and that the trial judge erred in severing them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision and concluding that the trial judge had the authority to manage the trial process.

The court emphasized that further delay was undesirable.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect its appeal from an order dismissing its motion to set aside a noting of default.

The responding party had previously obtained default judgments discharging mortgages and awarding possession of the property.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time, noting that the moving party had formed a timely intention to appeal and the deficiencies in its initial filing were minor.

The appellant broadcaster sought injunctive relief against parties assisting Canadian residents to subscribe to and decode U.S. direct-to-home satellite programming.

The appeal turned on whether s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act imposed a blanket prohibition on decoding encrypted subscription programming signals unless authorized by a lawful distributor in Canada, or only prohibited decoding of signals from licensed Canadian distributors.

Applying the modern contextual approach to statutory interpretation, the Court held the provision unambiguously creates an absolute prohibition with a limited exception and aligns with the broader broadcasting and copyright regime.

The Court refused to answer the stated Charter questions because the record did not support constitutional adjudication.

The appellants challenged findings that they engaged in fraudulent conveyances intended to permit the appellant husband to seek termination of child and spousal support obligations.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility were amply supported by the evidence, including suspicious transfers of shares and property for inadequate consideration and in secrecy.

The court also upheld the tracing of proceeds to a residential property and the conclusion that support obligations would not be honoured.

The appeal, including the challenge to the costs award, was dismissed with costs.