Matthew Joseph Latella

The moving parties sought to set aside two international arbitral awards under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, alleging inability to present their case, excess of jurisdiction, and inadequate reasons.

The court found a procedural fairness breach where the arbitrator made a proper-party finding without submissions, but held the issue was not material in context because separate findings eliminated personal liability on other grounds.

The court rejected the jurisdiction and insufficiency-of-reasons challenges, emphasizing the narrow scope of intervention and deference to international arbitral awards.

Exercising discretion under Article 34, the court declined to order a new arbitration.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether service of an application record on the Republic of Argentina in a proceeding to enforce a U.S. judgment had to comply with the Hague Convention or could be validly effected through diplomatic channels under the State Immunity Act.

The court held that the State Immunity Act provides three non-hierarchical, alternative methods for service on a foreign state, and that service through diplomatic channels was valid.

The Republic’s motion for a declaration that it had not been duly served was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the applicants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal concerning an international commercial arbitration award.

The application judge had set aside the award due to a reasonable apprehension of bias by the arbitrator, who had accepted a second, unrelated arbitration engagement from the appellants' counsel without disclosure to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred by applying a subjective test for disclosure and bias, rather than the objective test mandated by the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Court found no breach of the arbitrator's legal duty to disclose and no reasonable apprehension of bias, as the second arbitration involved no common parties or overlapping issues, and the arbitrator was not aware of the parties' subjective disclosure expectations.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court to address other grounds for attacking the award.

The applicants sought to set aside two international arbitral awards, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias, exceeding jurisdiction, and inadequate reasons by the arbitrator.

The core issue was the arbitrator's failure to disclose a concurrent retainer from the respondents' counsel while the arbitration was ongoing.

The court found a reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the importance of arbitrator impartiality and the specific context of the parties' pre-appointment concerns regarding relationships with counsel.

The awards were set aside, and a new arbitration was ordered.

The Plaintiff, a numbered corporation, sought summary judgment for HST payment on a property sale to the Defendant, Lucia Pessoa Park, amounting to $364,000.

The Defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment regarding municipal development fees owed by the Plaintiff.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claim for HST, finding the sale was exempt as a used residential unit under the Excise Tax Act, and that even if HST were payable, the Plaintiff was deemed to have collected it due to a statutory declaration.

The court granted the Defendant's cross-motion for development fees, which the Plaintiff had conceded.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 20, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of applications by Belokon, Entes, Sistem, and Stans (the "Applicants") to recognize and enforce arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic (the "Republic"), and to declare an exigible ownership interest of the Republic in Centerra Gold Inc. shares held by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC.

The Republic and Kyrgyzaltyn (the "Respondents") sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting claims for full or substantial indemnity.

It also determined that costs should be payable on a several, not joint and several, basis due to the unrelated nature of the Applicants and the court-directed common issue hearing.

The court limited the costs award to the common issue hearing, excluding prior jurisdiction motions or general recognition application costs, and considered previous compensation for materials.

The applicants sought a declaration that the Kyrgyz Republic held an exigible ownership interest in shares of Centerra Gold Inc. registered in the name of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, to enforce arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Agreement on New Terms (ANT) unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn JSC as the beneficial owner of the shares, not the Republic.

The court rejected arguments based on contract interpretation under New York law and trust principles under Canadian law, emphasizing the separate legal personality of the subsidiary and the lack of evidence for an ownership interest or trust.

This costs endorsement addresses the plaintiffs' request for partial indemnity costs following their successful resistance of a motion brought by the defendants.

The court found the plaintiffs' claim for $50,130.33, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be reasonable, considering the complexity and importance of the underlying motion.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments to deny costs, including those related to the conduct of the first motion judge and the plaintiffs' affidavit evidence, emphasizing that the defendants' motion was successfully resisted.

The defendants moved to set aside service ex juris, dismiss for want of jurisdiction, or stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens in a franchise dispute.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of valid rescission of Saab Dealer Sales and Service Agreements under the Arthur Wishart Act (Ontario) and Alberta Franchises Act, and damages for statutory misrepresentation or breach of contract.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the defendant franchisor carried on active business in the province.

The court also determined that California was not a clearly more appropriate forum, considering factors such as the residence of plaintiffs, location of witnesses, governing law, and the avoidance of proving Ontario law in a foreign jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a contempt motion between the plaintiff and defendants, the court addressed costs.

Although the defendants successfully defended the contempt motion, the court found it more likely than not that one defendant removed certain logbooks in contravention of court orders, which militated against awarding costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff also failed on the motion and therefore was not entitled to costs.

However, a non-party that participated in the proceedings was awarded substantial indemnity costs due to its limited but necessary involvement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the non-party $25,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the defendants and a non-party corporation for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the delivery of aircraft engine logbooks.

The moving party argued the materials had been removed or withheld in breach of orders compelling their production.

The court held that contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found the evidence against the non-party was entirely circumstantial with no plausible motive established.

While the evidence suggested it was possible the individual defendant removed the logbooks, the court concluded the record did not establish the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt due to alternative explanations and lack of direct evidence.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

Costs decision following two motions in an employment action alleging constructive dismissal and entitlement to a bonus.

The defendant successfully moved to set aside a noting in default and successfully resisted the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion concerning whether a bonus should be paid entirely in cash or partially through restricted share units.

The court found that plaintiff’s counsel improperly refused to consent to setting aside the noting in default, unnecessarily increasing litigation costs.

Substantial indemnity costs of $9,500 were awarded for the motion to set aside the noting in default.

Partial indemnity costs of $20,000 were awarded for the summary judgment motion.