Matthew Stroh

The applicant sought to enforce a final arbitral award against the respondents and moved for a worldwide Mareva injunction to freeze their assets.

The court recognized and enforced the arbitral award pursuant to section 50 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, as it had not been appealed or challenged.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a worldwide Mareva injunction because the applicant sought permanent relief on an interlocutory motion and failed to provide the mandatory undertaking for damages.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant bringing a modified motion.

The plaintiff, a municipal councillor, brought two defamation actions against several defendants regarding statements made on social media and at a town council meeting.

The defendants moved to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act (s. 137.1).

The court found that the expressions related to a matter of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the merits-based hurdle, as the defendants had valid defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed the public interest hurdle, as she could not demonstrate that the harm she suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

Both actions were dismissed.

Hazelton Homes Corporation, a non-party, brought a motion for leave to intervene and to set aside orders granting the plaintiffs leave to issue writs of possession for two properties.

Hazelton alleged the defendant held the properties in trust for it, while the defendant claimed the trust agreements were forged.

The plaintiffs and the first mortgagee held mortgages in default.

The court found Hazelton was not a mortgagor under section 23 of the Mortgages Act but granted an interim order allowing Hazelton to intervene and stayed the enforcement of the writs of possession, conditional upon Hazelton paying all mortgage arrears, ongoing interest, and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a Mareva injunction but successful in obtaining an order for interim possession of a jewellery set, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success was substantially divided and the costs sought by the plaintiff were excessive.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce a default judgment and permanent injunction obtained in Texas against the respondents for breach of a film production agreement.

The respondents, who were properly served but did not participate in the Texas proceedings, opposed the application.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Texas, as the contract was formed there.

The court also found the judgment was final and no defences to enforcement applied.

The application was granted, and the Texas judgment, including its injunctive relief, was recognized and enforced in Ontario.

Following dismissal of a proposed securities class action leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought nearly $900,000 based on partial recovery of actual legal fees, while the plaintiff argued for a substantially reduced award grounded in access-to-justice concerns.

The court held that the costs protocol developed for certification motions does not apply to leave motions, which function as a robust merits-based screening mechanism and often involve extensive evidentiary records.

Applying the hourly rate grid and Rule 57.01 factors, the court reduced certain disbursements but rejected the plaintiff’s lower estimate.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs at $500,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation class action under the Securities Act and to certify the action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant mining company's public disclosures regarding mineral production and grade levels were misrepresentations, which were later corrected by anonymous internet postings by short-sellers, causing a significant drop in share price.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff's expert evidence failed to controvert the defendant's expert explanation of the discrepancies in the production numbers.

Consequently, the court also dismissed the motion for certification, as the common law claims rested on the same evidentiary foundation and were destined to fail.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring a class action against a mining company for secondary market misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged that the company's public disclosures regarding mineral production and grade levels were false, as purportedly revealed by a subsequent technical report and anonymous short-seller internet postings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable possibility of success at trial because the defendants' uncontroverted expert evidence explained that the discrepancies between the reports were due to different reporting parameters, not misrepresentations.