Kristine Di Bacco

The appellants appealed an order refusing to grant a stay of proceedings in an oppression remedy case.

They argued that California courts had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's exercise of discretion and concluding that the oppression remedy was legitimately sought in Ontario.

Costs of $12,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented appellant appealed four Certificates of Assessment of Costs issued by an assessment officer following the dismissal of his earlier appeal.

The appellant raised numerous objections, including allegations that the respondents' claims for costs were fraudulent, that one corporate respondent did not exist, and that the assessment officer demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessment officer's duty was to assess costs in accordance with the court's order, not to look behind it or review the underlying basis of the claims.

The court found no foundation for the appellant's allegations of fraud or bias.