Matthew John Diskin

Global Fuels Inc. appealed an Associate Justice's order that dismissed its motion to compel the defendants to provide a further and better affidavit of documents.

The original motion was dismissed because the requested documents were deemed irrelevant and the request disproportionately broad, seeking thousands of pages of irrelevant material.

The appeal judge upheld the Associate Justice's decision, agreeing that the documents sought, which were not related to gas stations with exclusivity contracts with Global Fuels, were irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action (unlawful interference, inducing breach of contract, and conspiracy).

The court also affirmed the proportionality principle, noting that Global Fuels could have narrowed its request.

The appeal was dismissed, and Global Fuels Inc. was ordered to pay costs.

The appellant, Canada Christian College (CCC), appealed a Divisional Court decision that dismissed its application for judicial review.

CCC challenged the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities' decision not to recommend proclamation of legislation that would grant CCC university status and degree-granting rights, following a negative recommendation from the Post-Secondary Education Quality Assessment Board.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's findings, holding that the Minister's decision to refer CCC's application to the Board was within his authority (intra vires) and that his subsequent decision to delay proclamation was reasonable and not an unlawful attempt to override the Legislature's will.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, clarifying the limits of ministerial discretion regarding legislative proclamation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants sought a declaration of defamation, a permanent injunction, and an order to remove a website against the respondent.

The court found that the respondent made defamatory statements against one applicant, Karim Aly, and granted a permanent injunction enjoining further defamation or threats against him.

However, the claims regarding the other applicant, Stratuscent Inc., and the website were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the website's prior removal.

Costs were awarded to Karim Aly.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the respondents' motion to strike the applicants' amended notice of application.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs, significantly reducing the amount claimed.

The court found the applicants' costs disproportionate, particularly regarding fees for amending their own deficient pleading, senior counsel rates for drafting, and unnecessary travel/disbursements for a virtual hearing.

The court emphasized that while the applicants won the underlying motion, their approach to costs was unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action for negligent misrepresentation, which was found to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The trial judge also found the action could not succeed on the merits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the appellants, as professional engineers, knew or ought to have known of their claim much earlier than when they filed their statement of claim, despite the respondents' ameliorative efforts and superior expertise.

The court emphasized that an expert report was not necessary for discoverability in these circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants failed to comply with a court order requiring them to post security for costs of the trial and appeal by a specified deadline.

Despite their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and attempts to obtain a stay of the order, the security was not posted.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the security for costs order.

This is a costs endorsement following a previous decision.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants/moving parties to pay the respondents/responding parties an agreed-upon all-inclusive amount of $3,500 in costs.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Court of Appeal decision requiring them to post security for costs of their appeal and trial costs, pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion was dismissed as the court found no serious issue of public importance, no irreparable harm (especially given the responding parties' undertaking to hold funds in trust), and the balance of convenience favoured dismissal due to the moving parties' history of delaying tactics.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions within an ongoing appeal: one by the appellants to set aside a prior order for security for judgment and costs, and another by the respondents to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

The court granted the appellants' motion in part, setting aside the requirement for security for the judgment amount but affirming the order for security for trial and appeal costs.

The respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal was dismissed as moot.

The court allowed the appellants to retract a previous concession regarding the appeal's frivolousness.

The moving parties, Room Full of Spoons, sought security for a trial judgment and costs, or alternatively, to lift a stay pending appeal, against the appellants, Wiseau Studio and Tommy Wiseau.

The motion arose from a history of litigation misconduct by the appellants, including obtaining an improper ex parte injunction, delaying proceedings, and failing to disclose assets in Ontario.

The court granted the motion, ordering the appellants to post security for the trial judgment and costs, finding that exceptional circumstances warranted the order due to the appellants' ex juris residence, lack of assets in the jurisdiction, and frivolous appeal, which created prejudice for the respondents.

The plaintiffs moved under Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary a prior judgment, seeking to reopen the trial to introduce new evidence and obtain a letter of request for additional evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the "new" evidence was available before trial with reasonable diligence and would not have changed the result.

The court emphasized the stringency of the test for reconsideration and found the motion to be another tactical attempt to delay.

The defendants, two American corporations, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(3)(a) to dismiss an oppression claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing they were not governed by the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA).

The plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement for a 5% ownership interest in the defendant companies, asserting they were beneficial owners and the defendants were affiliates of Ontario corporations controlled from Ontario.

The court found that the OBCA's definition of "affiliate" could include foreign corporations controlled by the same person as an Ontario corporation, and that the Ontario Superior Court had jurisdiction over the oppression claim, as well as other claims for breach of contract and tracing.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporation, to post security for costs pursuant to Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging insufficient assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

The court reviewed the two-part test for security for costs, which places the initial onus on the defendant to demonstrate a good reason to believe the plaintiff has insufficient assets.

The court found that the defendant failed to meet this initial onus, as their evidence was based on speculation rather than concrete indicia of financial difficulty.

The plaintiff, an operating business with ongoing investments and a subordinated major liability, provided sufficient evidence of its financial stability and ability to meet a costs order.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Henry Lotin, brought two defamation actions against his brother-in-law Tomas Gregor and sister-in-law Andrea Gregor, seeking summary judgment, non-compensatory general damages, and an injunction.

The defendants also sought summary judgment.

The court dismissed the action against Tomas Gregor, finding that the alleged defamatory statements were not proven.

However, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Lotin against Andrea Gregor for two defamatory statements: one accusing Lotin of stealing from Agnes in a telephone conversation with Gabor, and another in a text message to Peter stating Lotin "ransacked" Agnes' condominium and "took things." Lotin was awarded $2,000 in general damages against Andrea Gregor.

The request for a permanent injunction was denied, as the court was not satisfied there was a likelihood of continued defamation.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim, specifically targeting claims against defendant Tyulenyev, the claim for passing off, and the claim for unlawful interference with economic relations.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test, finding that sufficient material facts were pleaded to support the claims against Tyulenyev, including personal liability for copyright infringement despite not being a directing mind of the corporation.

Regarding the passing off claim, the court acknowledged its novelty in recognizing the "style and content" of reports as a "get-up" but held that novelty alone is not a basis to strike a claim if material facts are pleaded and there is a reasonable prospect of success.

For the unlawful interference claim, the court found that an intention to injure could be inferred from the pleaded facts and that the "public" relying on the plaintiff's reports was sufficiently identified as a third party.

Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to recover alleged debt from the defendants based on a debt settlement agreement.

The defendants denied the contract or alleged breach by the plaintiff for failing to leave the ESL industry, and sought to amend their counterclaim to include this breach.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend their counterclaim, finding it was not prejudicial and disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff's summary judgment motion was dismissed, as the issues in the main action and the amended counterclaim were inextricably intertwined, creating a genuine issue requiring a trial and raising the risk of inconsistent findings and inefficient use of judicial resources if heard separately.