Meredith Rae Bacal

This endorsement from the Ontario Court of Appeal addresses three motions within the ongoing bankruptcy appeal of Sergio Grillone.

Bluecore Capital Inc. sought an order precluding Mr. Grillone from bringing further motions without leave, increased security for costs, and to quash a summons.

Mr. Grillone brought a cross-motion for contempt and sought to vary a previous order.

Daniel Loberto sought to quash a summons.

During oral arguments, Mr. Grillone withdrew most of his motions and summonses.

The court granted Bluecore's request to preclude Mr. Grillone from bringing further motions without leave under Rule 37.16 due to his history of multiple motions, collateral attacks, and abuse of process.

The request for increased security for costs was denied as the related motions were withdrawn.

The summonses to counsel were quashed by consent.

The court ordered Mr. Grillone to perfect his appeal within 10 days and expedited the appeal.

The Patient Ombudsman appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its proposed investigation into long-term care homes, which the Divisional Court found was prohibited by s. 13.3(5) of the Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, due to existing proceedings on the matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's application of the reasonableness standard and its broad interpretation of "in connection with" in s. 13.3(5).

The court found no error in the Divisional Court's conclusion that the Patient Ombudsman's investigation was unreasonably commenced given the extant proceedings and the clear overlap of subject matter.

Bluecore Capital Inc., the respondent on appeal, brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a bankruptcy order against Sergio Grillone, the appellant, and for an order requiring Mr. Grillone to post security for costs of the appeal.

The motion judge granted the motion, finding that Mr. Grillone had not diligently prosecuted his appeal, his grounds of appeal were very weak, he had failed to satisfy previous cost orders, and the relative prejudice strongly favoured lifting the stay to allow a trustee to manage his assets for the benefit of creditors.

The court also ordered Mr. Grillone to post $30,000 as security for costs.

The moving parties, NDrive, Navigation Systems S.A. and its directors, sought security for costs under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against the appellants (Zhou parties) in an ongoing appeal.

The motion judge had previously found the appellants liable for civil fraud, awarded substantial damages and full indemnity costs, and noted their shocking and reprehensible litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion for security for costs, totaling $300,000, finding that the prior findings of fraud and litigation misconduct, coupled with the appellants' insufficient assets in Ontario, constituted "other good reason" under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

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 applicant sought an urgent order to be certified as a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada's National Council election after the returning officer refused her candidacy due to old social media posts.

The court found it had jurisdiction to intervene in the rules of an unincorporated political association where a significant contractual right was breached.

It held that the returning officer acted beyond his authority by imposing additional criteria not found in the party's rules, which explicitly stated that eligible candidates "shall be certified." The court granted the application, ordering the applicant's name to be added to the ballot.

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.

The Canadian National Railway Company sought a 30-day extension of a without-notice injunction previously granted to prevent protesters from trespassing on or blocking its Brampton Intermodal Hub facility.

The court had initially granted a 10-day injunction due to apprehended harm.

Despite a lack of actual trespass or blockade in the preceding week, new evidence indicated a significant, organized protest was imminent.

The court acknowledged the exceptional circumstances, including the global pandemic and societal upheaval, but emphasized the fundamental rights to expression and protest.

Applying Rule 40.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that an extension without notice could only be for an additional ten days and required exceptional circumstances.

Balancing the need to protect private rights with preserving freedom of expression, the court limited the injunction extension to ten days and mandated a further hearing on notice to the affected parties, stressing that injunctions should minimally impair rights.

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.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporation, to post security for costs pursuant to Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging insufficient assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

The court reviewed the two-part test for security for costs, which places the initial onus on the defendant to demonstrate a good reason to believe the plaintiff has insufficient assets.

The court found that the defendant failed to meet this initial onus, as their evidence was based on speculation rather than concrete indicia of financial difficulty.

The plaintiff, an operating business with ongoing investments and a subordinated major liability, provided sufficient evidence of its financial stability and ability to meet a costs order.

The motion was dismissed.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal an arbitrator's award and the granting of the Respondent's application to recognize and enforce the award.

The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, while the Applicant argued for partial indemnity.

The court found the Applicant's litigation strategy, as revealed in a settlement proposal, to be dubious and aimed at prolonging litigation, warranting a sanction.

Consequently, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Respondent, finding it fair and reasonable given the Applicant's conduct and the moderate complexity of the proceedings.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought partial summary judgment against Yorktown Motors and Nisan Paranthaman.

RBC had financed Paranthaman's purchase of a Mercedes-Benz from Yorktown, which was later discovered to be "re-VINned" and potentially stolen.

RBC's claim against Paranthaman was to be dismissed, but it sought judgment against Yorktown based on the Loan Program Dealer Agreement (LPDA), arguing Yorktown breached representations and warranties, making it liable regardless of fault.

Yorktown disputed RBC's interpretation of the LPDA and argued that granting partial summary judgment would be inappropriate given the ongoing multi-party litigation involving crossclaims and third-party claims against other auto dealers, an individual, and the Crown, which could lead to inconsistent findings.

The court dismissed RBC's motion for summary judgment, finding it premature due to insufficient evidence establishing the vehicle was stolen and the significant risk of inconsistent factual findings at a subsequent trial.

The plaintiff, Henry Lotin, brought two defamation actions against his brother-in-law Tomas Gregor and sister-in-law Andrea Gregor, seeking summary judgment, non-compensatory general damages, and an injunction.

The defendants also sought summary judgment.

The court dismissed the action against Tomas Gregor, finding that the alleged defamatory statements were not proven.

However, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Lotin against Andrea Gregor for two defamatory statements: one accusing Lotin of stealing from Agnes in a telephone conversation with Gabor, and another in a text message to Peter stating Lotin "ransacked" Agnes' condominium and "took things." Lotin was awarded $2,000 in general damages against Andrea Gregor.

The request for a permanent injunction was denied, as the court was not satisfied there was a likelihood of continued defamation.

The applicants sought a declaration that a binding settlement agreement had been reached with the respondents regarding rent disputes under four leases.

The respondents argued that no agreement was formed as formal execution and delivery of post-dated cheques were conditions precedent.

Applying an objective test, the court found that the respondents' lawyer had apparent authority to make a binding offer via email, which the applicants accepted by returning executed drafts.

The court declared a binding agreement existed and awarded damages for breach of contract.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim, specifically targeting claims against defendant Tyulenyev, the claim for passing off, and the claim for unlawful interference with economic relations.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test, finding that sufficient material facts were pleaded to support the claims against Tyulenyev, including personal liability for copyright infringement despite not being a directing mind of the corporation.

Regarding the passing off claim, the court acknowledged its novelty in recognizing the "style and content" of reports as a "get-up" but held that novelty alone is not a basis to strike a claim if material facts are pleaded and there is a reasonable prospect of success.

For the unlawful interference claim, the court found that an intention to injure could be inferred from the pleaded facts and that the "public" relying on the plaintiff's reports was sufficiently identified as a third party.

Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to recover alleged debt from the defendants based on a debt settlement agreement.

The defendants denied the contract or alleged breach by the plaintiff for failing to leave the ESL industry, and sought to amend their counterclaim to include this breach.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend their counterclaim, finding it was not prejudicial and disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff's summary judgment motion was dismissed, as the issues in the main action and the amended counterclaim were inextricably intertwined, creating a genuine issue requiring a trial and raising the risk of inconsistent findings and inefficient use of judicial resources if heard separately.