Meredith Rae Bacal

The applicant, an experienced litigation lawyer, sought leave to bring a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his appeal in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The appeal had been dismissed for failure to perfect it within the ordered timeframe.

The court found that the applicant's conduct, including repeated delays and failure to comply with rules, indicated an attempt to stall the enforcement of the bankruptcy order.

The motion for leave was dismissed with costs.

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The request for increased security for costs was denied as the related motions were withdrawn.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 plaintiff, Canadian National Railway Company, brought an ex parte motion for an interim quia timet injunction to restrain unknown individuals from blockading its railway operations in Ontario.

The blockades were part of a political protest regarding the conflict in the Middle East.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm due to significant economic damage and disruption of rail traffic, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff as the protests were occurring on private property.

The interim injunction was granted.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Patient Ombudsman's decision to initiate an investigation into their long-term care home's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicants argued that section 13.3(5) of the Excellent Care for All Act precluded the investigation because the matter was already the subject of other proceedings, including a provincial commission, an Ontario Ombudsman investigation, and class actions.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the Patient Ombudsman unreasonably interpreted the statute and was prohibited from proceeding.

The application for judicial review was granted and the decision to investigate was quashed.

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).

Following a decision permanently staying the plaintiffs' second action for abuse of process, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, finding that the defendants' Rule 49 offer was not beaten and the plaintiffs' fraud claim was never adjudicated.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the requested amounts by 25% to account for issues that were deferred to a potential future motion.

Costs were fixed at $34,608 for the main group of defendants and $13,722 for Dr. Kajdehi.

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 plaintiff commenced a wrongful dismissal action in 2015 against his former employer, which was stayed when the employer declared bankruptcy.

In 2019, the plaintiff commenced a second action against the bankrupt employer and several new defendants, alleging oppression, common employer, and improper transfer of assets.

The newly added defendants moved to strike or stay the second action.

The court permanently stayed the second action as an abuse of process, finding that it improperly circumvented the comprehensive regime of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for challenging asset transfers, as well as the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the addition of parties to an existing action.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated May 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

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 defendants moved under Rule 25.11 to strike out portions of the plaintiff's defence to counterclaim, arguing the paragraphs improperly pleaded motive, referenced a failure to provide particulars, and disclosed a settlement offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that pleading motive is proper when relevant to an abuse of process defence.

The court also held that Rule 49.06(1) did not apply because the settlement offer was made in a discontinued action, and that settlement privilege had been waived.

The failure to provide particulars was also deemed relevant to the abuse of process defence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence and dismiss their counterclaim for failing to pay a previous costs order of $52,415.07.

The defendants argued they had paid the costs award via two bank transfers.

The court found that the transfers were intended as payments towards an Alternative Payment of Security Option (APSO) under a Mareva injunction, not the costs award.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding costs by a specified date, failing which the plaintiff could return for further relief.

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 brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

Following a case management teleconference, the court issued directions regarding two related applications brought by the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association and the City of Toronto against Ontario concerning the demolition of heritage buildings.

Toronto sought an order requiring Ontario to produce a 'record of decision' prior to the hearing, arguing that the demolition involved a statutory power of decision.

The case management judge deferred this issue to the panel hearing the applications, noting that the panel could draw appropriate inferences or order further disclosure if necessary.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to stop the demolition of four industrial buildings with heritage designations under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court found that the respondents likely began demolition by mistake, failing to comply with the Heritage Act and a subdivision agreement with the City of Toronto.

The court granted an interim order of prohibition under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to prevent the destruction of the buildings pending the final determination of the application by a panel of the Divisional Court.