Madeline Klimek

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 2025 decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiff and defendants brought various motions in a motor vehicle accident tort claim.

The plaintiff sought to compel answers to a refused discovery question regarding the defendant Uhaul's pre-litigation investigation.

The court dismissed this request, finding the investigation was protected by litigation privilege as its dominant purpose was in contemplation of litigation.

The defendants Uhaul and Manbauman sought leave to amend their Statements of Defence to allege that the plaintiff and his brother engaged in a staged collision for insurance fraud, based on surprising discovery evidence from Manbauman.

The court granted leave to amend, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The defendant, a UK-based digital payment company, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, alleged misrepresentation and civil conspiracy related to the loss of cryptocurrency purchased through the defendant's platform.

The court found no presence-based jurisdiction, as the defendant did not carry on business in Ontario, having only a virtual, passive presence.

The court also declined to assume jurisdiction, finding no presumptive connecting factors, as the alleged misrepresentations were not received or acted upon in Ontario, and the alleged financial loss did not occur in Ontario.

The action was dismissed against the moving defendant for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of RPG Receivables Purchase Group Inc., finding that the bankruptcy judge erred in concluding that payments made by Specialty Chemical Industries Inc. to American Pacific Corporation were not void as preferences under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court held that an insolvent debtor’s intention to continue in business can only rebut the statutory presumption of intent to prefer if there is a reasonable basis to believe that the business continuation will benefit creditors generally.

Here, there was no such reasonable basis, and the payments must be repaid.

The court considered motions for security for costs and for summary judgment regarding a possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) in a dispute over helicopter repairs.

Mansfield Heliflight Inc. sought security for costs from USCAN Aviation Sales Ltd., while USCAN cross-moved for summary judgment to confirm its possessory lien and for an order requiring Mansfield to provide security.

The court dismissed the security for costs motion, finding USCAN had a good chance of partial success and that the defendant conceded some amount was owing.

The court granted a declaration that USCAN has a possessory lien over the helicopter, but declined to order Mansfield to pay security into court, maintaining the status quo until the amount of the lien is determined.