Fahad Siddiqui

The applicant company sought an interim and interlocutory injunction to enforce a standstill agreement against its founder and largest shareholder, pending arbitration.

The respondent had issued a press release calling for the replacement of the board of directors, which the applicant argued breached the negative covenants in the agreement.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the breach of negative covenants, irreparable harm to the company's goodwill, and a balance of convenience favoring the applicant.

The anti-SLAPP motion was dismissed because the application had substantial merit and the public interest in enforcing commercial contracts outweighed the protection of the expression.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a partially successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendants sought to dismiss the entire action or strike parts of the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

The court previously struck the claims of three subsidiary plaintiffs entirely and struck a specific claim of the main plaintiff with leave to amend, while dismissing the defendants' primary request to dismiss the entire action.

The court found the outcome split and, applying principles of costs, awarded the defendants 50% of their partial indemnity costs, fixed at $14,300, to reflect their partial success in narrowing the issues and removing parties.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action or strike the Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(a) and (b).

The motion sought to dismiss claims advanced by "Additional TyCorra Plaintiffs" due to lack of privity and to strike claims related to a TFI lease due to a drafting error.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' preliminary objections regarding delay and fresh step.

The court granted the motion to strike the claims of TyCorra Group Inc., TyCorra Leasing Inc., and TyCorra Fleet Solutions Inc. without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action due to lack of privity.

The claim of TyCorra Investments Inc. related to the TFI lease was struck with leave to amend to correct a drafting error.

The balance of the defendants' motion, which sought to strike the main contractual claims based on an interpretation of Right of First Refusal Agreements in the context of related contracts, was dismissed, as the court found a "germ or scintilla" of a cause of action.

The appellant objected to their civil appeal proceeding in writing, arguing the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order a written hearing over a party's objection, contrary to the *Courts of Justice Act* and *Rules of Civil Procedure*.

The court, through a Case Management Judge, dismissed the objection, affirming its broad implicit jurisdiction to manage its own process and ensure the just and efficient administration of justice, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that neither the Act nor the Rules mandate an absolute right to an oral hearing and found the appeal suitable for a written disposition.

The plaintiffs, a Muslim-Canadian businessman and his restaurant chain, sued the defendants for defamation after the defendants posted videos containing hateful comments about Muslims and the restaurant.

One of the defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and alternatively under Rule 21.01(3)(d) as an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's expression was not related to a matter of public interest, but rather constituted hallmarks of hate directed at the plaintiffs.

The court also found the pleadings set out a valid prima facie case of defamation.

The applicant, a civil liberties organization, brought a public interest challenge against the administrative segregation provisions (sections 31-37) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, arguing they violated sections 7, 11(h), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant had standing to seek a declaration of invalidity under section 52(1) but not a personal remedy under section 24(1).

The court held that the legislative scheme violated section 7 of the Charter because it failed to provide an independent review of the institutional head's decision to maintain an inmate in administrative segregation, which breached the principles of fundamental justice (procedural fairness) and was not saved by section 1.

The court dismissed the claims under section 11(h) and section 12, finding that segregation is not a punishment and that the scheme, if properly applied with consideration for inmates' mental health, does not constitute cruel and unusual treatment.

The court declared the provisions unconstitutional to the extent they authorize segregation beyond five working days without independent review, but suspended the declaration for 12 months.

The plaintiffs in a competition law class action regarding price-fixing of lithium-ion batteries brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes against two groups of defendants, NEC and Samsung.

The plaintiffs and the settling defendants reached settlement agreements and agreed on a plan for disseminating the notice of hearing for settlement approval.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met in the settlement context and granted the motion to certify the action for settlement purposes.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's action or remove the plaintiff's counsel, alleging improper use of inadvertently disclosed privileged documents.

The court found that the plaintiff's failure to destroy one electronic copy of a privileged document and its subsequent limited use were inadvertent and caused no prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the request for a stay and removal of counsel but granted ancillary relief ordering the destruction of the privileged documents and prohibiting their further use.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

In a proposed national class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to compel pre-certification discovery from a non-party, Bloomberg LP.

The defendants brought a motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from taking any steps in furtherance of the subpoena without authorization from the Ontario court.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had circumvented Ontario's rules and jurisprudence regarding the discovery of non-parties and pre-certification discovery in class actions.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to control its own process and regulate the examination of non-parties for an Ontario action.