Ron Craigen

The appellant sought to stay or dismiss an Ontario contract action on the basis of a prior default declaratory judgment obtained in Minnesota stating that nothing was owed under the parties' agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that even assuming the technical requirements of res judicata or issue estoppel were met, the motion judge properly exercised discretion not to apply those doctrines where doing so would be unjust.

The court emphasized the absence of any merits determination in the foreign proceeding, the tactical and defensive nature of the foreign declaratory action, and the fact that the compensation claim was integrally tied to Ontario under contracts governed and enforced by Ontario law.

Comity did not require a stay in the circumstances.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to set aside a chambers judge's decision dismissing her motion for leave to extend time to file a notice of appeal.

The appellant argued the chambers judge misapplied the test for extending time by failing to consider prejudice to the appellant and the justice of the case.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the chambers judge properly applied the test and that the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the motion, emphasizing the need to view the test through a mental health lens for self-represented litigants with mental health issues.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing her motion to set aside the dismissal of her wrongful dismissal action.

The action had been dismissed due to her failure to comply with a pre-trial order.

Applying the Kefeli factors, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for her delay and lacked evidence of an arguable case on the merits.

The appellant, a Minnesota company, appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay the respondent's Ontario breach of contract action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in assessing the location of witnesses, documents, and geography, and that a default judgment obtained in a parallel Minnesota action should trump all other factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's assessment of the factors was supported by the evidence and that a foreign default judgment is merely one factor to be weighed in the forum non conveniens analysis, not a determinative one.