Matthew John Diskin

Following the dismissal of its application for the enforcement of letters rogatory, the applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the applicant was a commercial entity pursuing its own private interests in foreign litigation, not a public interest litigant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondent but reduced the quantum claimed from $32,647.71 to $18,189.46, noting that the respondent had already received a substantial costs award on an earlier, nearly identical application.

The applicant, an American pharmaceutical company, sought to enforce amended letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel testimony and documentary evidence from the respondent, a federal Crown corporation, for use in foreign litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it enjoyed Crown immunity.

The court held that the presumption of Crown immunity under s. 17 of the federal Interpretation Act prevented the enforcement of letters rogatory against a Crown agent, as the provincial Evidence Act does not bind the federal Crown.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the legal standard for enforcing letters rogatory, as the evidence sought was not necessary for trial and had already been obtained through an Access to Information Act request.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge, and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $10,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that it had repudiated a contract by indicating it would no longer pay the agreed contract price.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual inference that the appellant's conduct, including repeatedly seeking lower quantities and prices, demonstrated an intention not to honour the contract price going forward.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondent accepted the repudiation by cancelling a shipment and pursuing litigation, and effectively communicated this acceptance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering specific performance and purchase price abatements for two real estate transactions.

The trial judge found the appellant vendors were not ready to close, failed to bargain in good faith, and committed an anticipatory breach, while the respondent purchasers were ready, willing, and able to perform.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or his interpretation of the abatement clauses.

The respondents (defendants) moved for security for costs of an appeal and the proceeding below.

The appellants (plaintiffs) are foreign residents with no assets in Ontario, have unpaid costs from the lower court, and are pursuing parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions.

The court granted the motion, ordering the appellants to post security for costs totaling $191,980.59 before taking any further steps in the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment.

The motion judge found that the statement of claim was properly served, the appellant made a tactical decision not to defend, and the appellant failed to raise an arguable defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the appellant failed to explain its failure to defend under Rule 16.07(a) and did not respond to the respondent's allegations regarding the mortgages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the respondent was entitled to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale based on an environmental condition.

The condition allowed the respondent to terminate the agreement in its sole and unfettered discretion based on its satisfaction with the property's physical condition.

An environmental assessment revealed soil permeability issues that affected the respondent's plans to develop a scrap metal facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the respondent acted reasonably and in good faith in exercising the termination clause.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect its appeal from an order dismissing its motion to set aside a noting of default.

The responding party had previously obtained default judgments discharging mortgages and awarding possession of the property.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time, noting that the moving party had formed a timely intention to appeal and the deficiencies in its initial filing were minor.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay the action on the ground that India was the more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting she correctly articulated and applied the governing legal principles.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action by a Master.

The Master had dismissed the action due to the appellant's failure to execute unlimited medical authorizations, relying on the appellant's overall conduct in the action.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that interlocutory dismissal is a remedy of last resort and the appellant's conduct was not contumelious.

Furthermore, the Master erred by relying on grounds not specified in the responding party's notice of motion, contrary to Rule 37.06.