Lou Brzezinski

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motions for leave to appeal and for a stay, the successful responding parties sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party failed to provide any costs submissions.

The court considered the principle of proportionality and the moving party's conduct which thwarted the bankruptcy trustee's mandate.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 for the trustee and $7,323.41 for the applicants, payable by the moving party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order appointing an investigative receiver over it.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred by not first finding evidence of fraud or dissipation of assets.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge applied the correct test under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and that the appointment was just and convenient given the interconnectedness of the moving party with bankrupt companies and the flow of funds between them.

The test for leave to appeal was not met.

The appellants appealed an order finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the claims fell within Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, establishing a presumption of jurisdiction simpliciter based on a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court also deferred to the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario was the convenient forum, noting the location of parties and witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's conclusions, noting that the motion judge carefully reviewed the record and allowed any claim with a scintilla of evidence to proceed to trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found the parties entered into a contract containing a performance guarantee, which the respondents breached, but limited damages to $1.00.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by finding a performance guarantee existed despite it not being explicitly pleaded as a term, and by failing to find it unconscionable.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to order the parties to bear their own costs despite a Rule 49.10 offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions on the contract terms were supported by the pleadings and evidence, and her discretion on costs was properly exercised.

The appellants appealed an order granting judgment on the respondent's claim for payment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent's claim and the appellants' claim for set off were so interrelated that judgment should not have been granted on the former if the latter was to proceed.

The court directed a trial for both claims and ordered the funds held in trust to remain as security pending further court order.

The appellant appealed an order of the lower court judge, who had dismissed their initial appeal for abuse of process due to undue delay in prosecution.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,000.

A motion for leave to cross-appeal to add a party to the lower court's order was also dismissed.