Matthew I. Milne-Smith

Following dismissal of a civil action against a casino operator arising from a fraudster gambling stolen funds, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of the action.

The plaintiffs argued the case raised a novel legal issue and that awarding costs would unfairly compound the losses already suffered through the fraud.

The court considered the access to justice principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to decline awarding costs.

No costs were ordered despite the defendant’s success in the underlying action.

The defendant casino operator moved under rule 21.01 to strike a claim brought by estate plaintiffs whose funds had been fraudulently obtained and then lost through gambling.

Applying the Anns/Cooper framework, the court held the pleadings did not disclose sufficient proximity to establish a duty of care to problem gamblers, and therefore no derivative duty to the plaintiffs.

The unjust enrichment, conversion, and knowing receipt claims were also untenable because the defendant had valid gambling contracts with the gamblers, was a bona fide purchaser without notice, and had no obligation to investigate the source of patrons' funds.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network sought leave to intervene as friends of the court in an appeal concerning whether the common law recognizes a tort of invasion of privacy.

The appellant supported the motions, while the respondent opposed them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that the proposed intervenors would not offer a significantly different perspective from the appellant and that permitting the interventions would cause injustice to the respondent by delaying the scheduled appeal and requiring new factums.

The bankrupt company's creditors appealed an order dismissing their motion under s. 135(5) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to challenge a proof of claim filed by a judgment creditor.

The proof of claim was based on a Singapore judgment.

The creditors argued that the judgment creditor received payments from a third party that should be set off against the judgment debt to prevent double recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the creditors did not have an unqualified right to challenge a valid judgment debt under s. 135(5).

The court further held that the creditors were privies of the bankrupt company and were barred by the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating the mitigation and set-off issues, which had already been determined in the Singapore proceedings.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding the enforcement of a Singapore judgment in Ontario.

The fresh evidence consisted of affidavits from a Singapore litigant who faced criminal contempt proceedings after criticizing the Singapore judicial system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test.

The court found that the evidence could have been obtained earlier with due diligence and, given its political context, would not have affected the outcome of the commercial dispute.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing a judgment granted against it by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore.

The appellant argued that the Singapore judgment should not be enforced because it was granted by a corrupt legal system with biased judges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the foreign court properly assumed jurisdiction and that the appellant failed to establish the defences of public policy, bias, or lack of natural justice.

The court held that there was no cogent evidence of bias or corruption in private commercial cases in Singapore.