Lisa C. Munro

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a Consulting Agreement and a Letter of Credit Agreement, and the dismissal of their motion to consolidate two related actions.

The appellants argued the agreements were unenforceable as illegal loans under the Criminal Code and were procured in breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the case was document-driven, appropriate for summary judgment, the agreements were not loans, and no fiduciary duty existed.

In a certified class action arising from a residential apartment fire, a defendant property manager sought leave to discontinue its third party claim against an insurance adjusting firm and a security investigation company without costs following settlement of the main action.

The third parties opposed the motion and sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $127,000.

The court held that although it was reasonable for the defendant to join the third parties given allegations concerning post‑fire activities, it was not reasonable to discontinue the claim without compensating them for defending the proceeding.

Applying the general costs principles under rule 57.01 and the discretionary framework for discontinuances under rule 23.05, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $72,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

In six Ontario libel actions tied to statements posted by a U.S. company and later republished in Ontario newspapers, the appellants argued Ontario lacked jurisdiction or should defer to Illinois.

The Court held that defamation was presumptively connected to Ontario because publication occurred there through reading, downloading, and republication.

It concluded the appellants did not rebut jurisdiction and did not prove Illinois was clearly the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent, Conrad Black, brought libel actions in Ontario against the directors and advisors of a U.S. company for statements posted on the company's website.

The appellants moved to stay the actions, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test and upheld the motion judge's finding that the alleged tort was committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive real and substantial connection.

The court found no unfairness in requiring the appellants to defend the actions in Ontario, as the statements were targeted at Canadian media and the respondent's reputation was damaged there.

The appeal was dismissed.