Mehak Kawatra

The Bank of Nevis International Limited (BONIL) appealed the dismissal of its action against Mark Kucher and BNI Holdcorp Ltd. The motion judge had dismissed BONIL's action, determining that Nevis, not Ontario, was the proper forum based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause and, alternatively, forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed BONIL's appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the forum selection clause applied to Mr. Kucher despite him not being a direct party to the agreement, and that Nevis was the more appropriate forum.

The respondents in an appeal moved for security for costs against the appellant, a Nevisian bank with no assets in Ontario.

The underlying action, dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, was initiated by the appellant against the respondents for defamation and breach of confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, finding good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and noting the appellant's lack of connection to Ontario and the context of criminal charges against its beneficial owner.

The plaintiff and several defendants brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations by the plaintiff that the defendants engaged in a plan to cause financial harm and confer unlawful benefits upon their departure from the organization.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality, ordering the parties to answer certain questions and fulfill specific undertakings while upholding refusals for questions that were irrelevant, disproportionate, or improper.

The plaintiff, an international bank headquartered in Nevis, sued the defendants in Ontario for defamation and breach of a confidentiality agreement.

The defendants, who had been noted in default, moved to set aside the default and dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The court set aside the noting in default, finding a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court then dismissed the action, enforcing a forum selection clause in the parties' investment agreement that designated St. Kitts and Nevis as the exclusive jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the court found that Nevis was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The appellant, Glenn Winder, appealed a motion judge's decision that his claim for the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion against Marriott International, Inc. did not disclose a cause of action.

The lawsuit stemmed from a data breach of Marriott's Starwood hotels reservation database.

Winder argued that Marriott's collection and storage of personal information, in a manner that did not meet its representations and legal obligations regarding security, constituted an invasion of privacy, vitiating consent.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion requires an actual intrusion into private affairs, not merely a failure to safeguard information from third-party intrusion.

The court found no facts pleaded to support that Marriott itself disclosed or caused disclosure of the information, distinguishing it from a failure to protect against external hacking.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend its claim to include causes of action under the Trademarks Act and for intentional interference with economic relations, abandoning its initial defamation claim.

The court struck the original statement of claim due to the plaintiff's lack of standing to sue on behalf of its members.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, finding that the proposed amended claim failed to plead essential elements for both the Trademark Act claim (lack of pleaded intellectual property ownership) and the intentional interference claim (failure to clearly plead its own economic interests and how they were harmed).

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a new draft amended statement of claim by a specified date, emphasizing that further attempts without proper pleading might be deemed abusive.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the defendant, payable before any new draft statement of claim is delivered.

In a proposed class action arising from a data breach of Marriott's hotel reservation database, the parties stated a question of law under Rule 21(1)(a) as to whether the plaintiff pleaded a legally viable cause of action for intrusion on seclusion.

The plaintiff argued that Marriott, by allegedly obtaining data under false pretenses and failing to protect it, was a 'constructive intruder'.

The court rejected this argument, following binding precedent that the tort of intrusion on seclusion applies only to actual intruders, not to defendants who fail to prevent a third-party hack.

The court concluded the Statement of Claim did not disclose a cause of action for intrusion on seclusion against Marriott.