Emily Young

The defendant brought a motion to vary an ex parte Mareva injunction to allow him to appoint a receiver over the property of a company controlled by the bankrupt.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the advances made by the defendant were equity rather than debt and that the security was a sham.

The court applied the 'just or convenient' test under the Courts of Justice Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Finding that the company had no active business to stabilize and that the validity of the security was highly contested, the court concluded it was not just or convenient to appoint a receiver and dismissed the motion.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the interpretation of leave provisions in certification orders for class actions relating to trailing commissions paid to mutual fund managers.

The appellants (mutual fund managers) argued that new class actions commenced by different plaintiffs on behalf of different classes should have required leave under the certification orders because they related to the same subject matter.

The motion judge and Court of Appeal held that the leave requirement applied only to proceedings by the certified class members and parties to the original actions, not to new plaintiffs seeking to represent different classes.

The court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the leave provisions were limited in scope to the parties and class members bound by the original certification orders.

The applicant, LAF Canada Company, sought an extension of its lease with the respondent, Woodbine Highway 7 Retail Inc., on the basis that the force majeure clause in the lease was triggered by government-mandated COVID-19 closures.

The court found the case to be on all fours with Niagara Falls Shopping Centre Inc. v. LAF Canada Company, 2023 ONCA 159, and held that the force majeure clause applied, extending the lease by 348 days.

LAF was not required to pay rent during the extension period, having already paid rent during the closure periods.

The court also awarded costs to LAF.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought a motion under Rule 5.05 to sever certain allegations advanced by Tarion Warranty Corporation (Tarion) into two separate actions.

Tarion, along with Carlo and Dino Taurasi, opposed the motion.

TD argued that Tarion's negligence claim (related to a cheque kiting scheme) and its claim to set aside a settlement agreement as a fraudulent conveyance were discrete and temporally separate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no undue complexity, delay, or prejudice, and that the claims arose from the same series of transactions with significant factual overlap, promoting the convenient administration of justice and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants in several related class actions brought motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' actions were statute-barred by limitation periods or were a nullity for failing to obtain leave to commence.

The court adjourned the limitation period motions, finding they overlapped with common issues in earlier certified class actions.

The court dismissed the motions based on the leave requirement, interpreting the certification orders' leave provisions as applying only to competing class actions representing the same class members, not to actions by different classes arising from the same factual matrix.

The defendants, Global News and its journalists, brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action brought by a Member of Parliament.

The defamation claim arose from news stories alleging the MP advised a Chinese diplomat to delay the release of two detained Canadians.

The court found that the defendants' expression related to a matter of public interest.

However, the plaintiff demonstrated that his defamation action had substantial merit and that the defendants' defenses of truth/justification and responsible communication were not valid.

The court concluded that the public interest in allowing the defamation proceeding to continue, to determine the truth of the serious allegations and vindicate the plaintiff's reputation, outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The defendants' motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent Ministries disqualifying its bid for a government debt collection contract.

The applicant was disqualified at the evaluation stage for failing to demonstrate it was currently registered under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the procurement dispute was commercial in nature and not subject to judicial review.

In the alternative, the Court held that the Ministries' decision to disqualify the bid based on an expired registration certificate was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

The defendants (Moving Parties) sought an order for the issuance of two letters of request to judicial authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to compel the examination of two witnesses, Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan and Fahad Nasser Alarfaj.

The Moving Parties argued these witnesses had relevant evidence for their motion to set aside Mareva orders, particularly regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the plaintiffs (controlled by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund) in this action versus unrelated U.S. litigation (LIV Golf Litigation) concerning PIF's independence from the KSA government.

The motion was unopposed by the plaintiffs.

The court found the proposed witnesses had prima facie relevant evidence and that the requirements under Rules 39.03 and 34.07(2) for examining non-parties and issuing letters of request for witnesses outside Canada were met.

The order for letters of request was granted.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility and production of compelled evidence in a civil contempt motion arising from alleged breaches of a Mareva order.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the motion judge's decision that answers to undertakings and further document production could not be compelled while the contempt motion was outstanding.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that evidence compelled prior to the contempt motion was admissible and did not violate sections 7, 11(c), or 13 of the Charter.

However, the court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in prematurely ruling on the admissibility of future answers to undertakings and in deferring the production motion.

The court held that the obligation to comply with the Mareva order continues despite the contempt motion, and admissibility should be determined when the evidence is tendered, based on whether the contempt motion is predominantly coercive or penal.

This costs endorsement follows a prior decision where the Court of Appeal allowed the tenant's appeal in part, extending the lease due to government-mandated COVID closures without rent during the extension, but reaffirming the tenant's obligation to pay rent during the closure periods.

The court ordered the tenant (appellant) to pay $20,000 in all-inclusive costs for the appeal, reflecting the divided success.

No costs were awarded for the motions, action, and counterclaim, as both the landlord and tenant experienced mixed success in those matters, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The tenant appealed a summary judgment that required it to pay rent during government-mandated COVID-19 closures and denied an extension of the lease term.

The Court of Appeal held that the force majeure clause did not excuse the tenant from paying rent during the closures because the clause expressly excluded financial inability.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in interpreting the excusing provision of the force majeure clause.

The Court held that the landlord's obligation to provide the premises was excused during the closures, but the lease term must be extended for an equivalent period, during which the tenant is not required to pay rent.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.

The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.

The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants and plaintiffs both brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding the admissibility of evidence in a civil contempt proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on four issues concerning the application of sections 7 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to evidence compelled pursuant to a Mareva order and undertakings.

The court directed that the defendant be the appellant and the plaintiffs be the cross-appellants.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action against them, arguing the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs alleged a massive international fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of $3.5 billion USD, with funds allegedly traced to the moving parties.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on contracts formed in the province, property located in Ontario, and the necessity of hearing the claim as a whole in a single jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of a Master.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by a Master.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.