Meredith Rae Bacal

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.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim with leave to amend, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $43,000 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle was less favourable than the outcome because it did not contemplate leave to amend, and thus awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the moving party at $23,969.22.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to serve a further and better affidavit of documents in an action arising from the alleged breach of an agreement for the sale of a medical practice.

The defendants opposed, arguing the requested documents were irrelevant, disproportionate, and that the motion should be refused due to the lack of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.05(1).

The court found the requested OHIP billing sheets, reconciliations, and bank statements were relevant to the pleadings and ordered their production, awarding costs to the plaintiffs.

The corporate defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and to dismiss the oppression remedy claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff alleged breach of an oral agreement for equity in a visual effects studio, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court found the plaintiff failed to plead any material facts establishing that the corporate defendant owed obligations under the agreement or engaged in wrongful conduct.

The statement of claim was struck with leave to amend, and the oppression claims were dismissed as the court lacked jurisdiction over the discontinued corporation.

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 plaintiffs, creators of the cult film 'The Room', sued the defendants for copyright infringement, breach of moral rights, misappropriation of personality, passing off, and intrusion upon seclusion over the defendants' unauthorized documentary 'Room Full of Spoons'.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages resulting from an ex parte injunction previously obtained by the plaintiffs that delayed the documentary's release.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the documentary's use of clips from 'The Room' constituted fair dealing for the purposes of criticism, review, and news reporting.

The court granted the defendants' counterclaim, awarding US$550,000 in compensatory damages for lost revenue due to the injunction, and CAD$200,000 in punitive damages for the plaintiffs' oppressive and bad faith litigation conduct.

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 applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award that ordered it to pay a $55,000 minimum guarantee to the respondent under a film distribution agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration agreement's 'final and binding' clause precluded appeals on questions of law.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed grounds of appeal were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The respondent's cross-application to enforce the arbitral award was granted.

The appellants appealed a decision granting an oppression application and ordering the production of financial documents to the minority shareholder.

The application judge found that the majority shareholder's refusal to provide financial disclosure and call a shareholders meeting constituted oppressive conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the application judge's interchangeable reference to the minority shareholder company and its principal.

The Court upheld the finding that the minority shareholder had a reasonable expectation of ongoing access to financial disclosure, which was violated by the appellants' conduct.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

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 motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, specifically seeking unredacted copies of the corporate defendant's 2015 and 2016 financial statements.

The defendants claimed the redacted portions were protected by litigation privilege and common interest privilege, arguing they were notes to shareholders describing the ongoing litigation.

The Master reviewed the documents under Rule 30.06(d) and found the defendants failed to establish the evidentiary foundation that the redacted portions were created for the dominant purpose of litigation.

The defendants were ordered to produce the unredacted financial statements and pay costs of $3,000.

The plaintiffs, creators of the cult film 'The Room', sought to extend an interlocutory injunction restraining the release of the defendants' documentary 'Room Full of Spoons'.

The defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing material non-disclosure on the initial ex parte motion and failure to meet the test for an injunction.

The court dissolved the injunction, finding the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including that the documentary's use of film excerpts likely constituted fair dealing.

The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants' right to freedom of expression.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to return $25,000 to the respondent.

The respondent and his wife had invested $35,000 in the appellant's internet start-up company, signing written agreements.

The trial judge found that the appellant had orally agreed to return the money on demand.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent was not a proper party plaintiff and that the trial judge erred in admitting parol evidence of the oral agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the oral agreement did not contradict the written agreements and fell within the collateral contract exception to the parol evidence rule.

The court also added the respondent's wife as a party plaintiff.

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.