Michael A. Polvere

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The plaintiff claimed an interest in a farm property based on an alleged 1990 oral agreement.

The action was commenced in 2007, but the plaintiff took no steps to advance the litigation after discoveries in 2009.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, rejecting the plaintiff's uncorroborated claims of illness.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants, as one defendant had died and the other had developed dementia, making a fair trial impossible.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking declarations that a civil judgment for personal injuries arising from an assault survived the defendant’s bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(a.1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and that the statutory stay did not prevent enforcement of the judgment.

The underlying jury verdict found that the defendant deliberately punched the plaintiff once in the head, causing catastrophic injury when the plaintiff fell and struck his head on a curb.

The court considered whether the damages constituted bodily harm “intentionally inflicted” within the meaning of s. 178(1)(a.1).

Relying on jurisprudence interpreting the provision as requiring intent to cause injury rather than merely intent to commit the act, the court held the evidence did not establish that the defendant intended to inflict bodily harm.

The motion to lift the stay and declare the debt non‑dischargeable in bankruptcy was dismissed.

Following the release of the court's endorsement in the appeals, counsel for the respondents wrote to the court concerning the disposition of the agreed upon costs.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum awarding costs of $14,000 to the estate trustee and another $14,000 to the bank, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The respondents obtained summary judgment in the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court against the appellants on personal guarantees.

The respondents applied to enforce the judgments in Ontario.

The appellants argued the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed this argument, noting the appellants had raised the issue in Louisiana and failed to appeal the foreign court's ruling that it had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not open to the appellants to re-litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Ontario after participating in the foreign proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdictional ruling.