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 respondents, Twitter, brought a motion to strike the applicants' notice of application under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The applicants alleged breach of contract after Twitter refused to sell them advertising space, arguing the refusal violated the duty of good faith, was unconscionable, and breached public policy informed by Charter values of freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants pleaded sufficient facts to state causes of action and that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail.

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 appellant tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating its tenancy because the landlords sold the premises and the purchaser required it for their own use.

The tenant argued that the landlords failed to pay the required one month's rent in compensation under s. 49.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act because the payment was made before the Notice to Terminate was served.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act does not require the compensation to be paid after the notice is served, provided it is paid prior to the termination date.

In a costs decision following dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation action as statute-barred and dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim, the court held the defendants were the successful parties in the main action and presumptively entitled to costs, while the plaintiffs were separately entitled to costs of defending the counterclaim.

The court rejected substantial indemnity costs based on allegations in the pleadings and on a purportedly favourable Rule 49 offer because the offer required an overly broad release and also included the counterclaim, making comparison with the judgment impossible.

Applying the Rule 57 factors, the court fixed the defendants' fees on a partial indemnity basis and allowed full disbursements, including expert disbursements for experts not called where the reports were reasonably necessary.

The plaintiffs were awarded a discrete amount for the counterclaim.

The applicant, Canada Christian College, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to recommend proclamation of legislative amendments that would grant it university status and expanded degree-granting authority.

The Minister had referred the applicant's request to the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, which concluded the applicant was not ready for the changes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's recommendations were not reviewable, the Minister's referral was intra vires the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, and the Minister's decision not to recommend proclamation was a legislative act not subject to procedural fairness and was reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion for an anti-suit injunction to prevent the plaintiffs from continuing a newly commenced Superior Court action, a Federal Court copyright action, and any future related proceedings worldwide.

The underlying dispute involved a documentary about the making of the plaintiffs' film.

The court stayed the new Superior Court action as an abuse of process, finding it was a collateral attack on previous final judgments.

However, the court declined to issue a broad anti-suit injunction or stay the Federal Court action, deferring to the Federal Court to determine issues of res judicata and issue estoppel within its own jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs brought an action for negligent misrepresentation against the defendants, alleging that steam generators purchased for resale in the Former Soviet Union failed to perform as represented in promotional brochures.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid invoices.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action, finding it was statute-barred under the former Limitations Act because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the equipment's deficiencies well outside the six-year limitation period.

The court also found no detrimental reliance on the brochures.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed for lack of proof.

The plaintiff former employer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant former employee from working for a competitor and from using confidential information.

The defendant had previously downloaded files before resigning but had returned them pursuant to an earlier interim order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant had conveyed confidential information to his new employer or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also noted the new employer was not a direct competitor in the same market.

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.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim with leave to amend, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $43,000 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle was less favourable than the outcome because it did not contemplate leave to amend, and thus awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the moving party at $23,969.22.

The corporate defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and to dismiss the oppression remedy claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff alleged breach of an oral agreement for equity in a visual effects studio, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court found the plaintiff failed to plead any material facts establishing that the corporate defendant owed obligations under the agreement or engaged in wrongful conduct.

The statement of claim was struck with leave to amend, and the oppression claims were dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction over the discontinued corporation.

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.