Michael David Schafler

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application to set aside an arbitral award arising from a post-closing earnout dispute in an international commercial arbitration.

It argued that the application judge improperly assessed alleged breaches of natural justice on a reduced procedural fairness standard because the arbitrator was an accountant rather than a legally trained adjudicator.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge correctly applied the governing principles, made factual findings open on the record, and repeatedly grounded the analysis in the parties' agreed arbitral process.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were awarded all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed a decision recognizing and enforcing a foreign arbitral award from the Dubai International Financial Centre.

The appellant argued the application judge erred under Article V 1(d) of the Convention by considering Dubai law to determine the applicable arbitral procedure, rather than strictly applying the rules specified in the parties' agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly interpreted the agreement as incorporating amended rules and properly considered Dubai law to determine what those amended rules were.

The court also rejected arguments that the procedure was unfair or contrary to public policy.

The court considered an application by InFrontier AF LP to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued in its favour by a Dubai-based arbitrator under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) Rules.

The respondent, Roeen Rahmani, opposed the application, arguing that the arbitration was not conducted in accordance with the parties’ agreement, that he was denied a fair hearing, and that enforcement would be contrary to Ontario public policy.

The court found that, due to legislative changes in Dubai, the DIAC Rules properly replaced the DIFC-LCIA Rules referenced in the parties’ agreement, and that the respondent had not established any procedural unfairness or public policy violation.

The application to recognize and enforce the award was granted.

The plaintiffs, Avante Automobile (2017) Corporation and Francesco Serpa, sought damages from BMW Canada Inc. for breach of statutory, contractual, and common law duties in relation to the purchase and operation of a BMW dealership.

The court found BMW Canada liable for failing to properly document an extension to complete required renovations and for not following the termination provisions of the Retailer Agreement.

However, the court preferred the defendant’s evidence on valuation and found no net recoverable damages.

The action was dismissed, subject to costs.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an application by the applicant to set aside an arbitral award.

The core dispute revolved around whether a forum selection clause in an asset purchase agreement, which designated New York courts, applied to the application to set aside the award, or if Ontario's International Commercial Arbitration Act and the Model Law governed due to the arbitration's "place" being Toronto.

The court found that the arbitration procedure was subject to an exception in the forum selection clause and that Toronto was the agreed or deemed "place" of arbitration.

Consequently, Ontario law and jurisdiction applied for setting aside the award.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

This decision addresses two motions: a Mareva injunction sought by CIM Mackenzie Creek Limited Partnership and Jiubin Feng against NSR Toronto Holdings Ltd., and a cross-motion by NSR Toronto Holdings Ltd. to stay CIM's counterclaim as an abuse of process.

CIM's Mareva injunction, based on alleged fraud by NSR in the sale of the Mackenzie Creek Project to Sunny Co., was dismissed due to lack of proof of fraud and no risk of asset dissipation.

NSR's cross-motion to stay CIM's counterclaim was granted because CIM failed to promptly disclose a settlement agreement with Sunny Co., which materially altered the litigation's adversarial landscape, constituting an abuse of process.

The court emphasized the strict disclosure requirements for such agreements.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its claims against two corporate and individual respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for lack of contractual privity and other deficiencies.

The motion judge had denied leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondents were not parties to the alleged contract (Mandate) and that other claims were unsustainable.

The court affirmed that reviewing a document expressly pleaded and incorporated into the statement of claim does not constitute considering evidence on a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion and upheld the discretionary refusal to grant further leave to amend.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their statement of defence without leave to amend.

The underlying action sought to enforce costs awards against the appellants.

The Associate Justice struck the defence after finding the appellants had flouted multiple peremptory court orders and a 'last chance' order regarding discovery and case management steps.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion to strike the pleading due to contumelious disregard for court orders.

The appellants (UDG) appealed a motion judge's decision to permanently stay their Ontario proceeding in favour of ongoing litigation in Singapore and Dubai.

UDG had commenced the Ontario action seeking declarations against the respondents (TAP), effectively advancing as claims the same allegations they made as defences in the foreign proceedings.

The motion judge found that a related loan involving Rutmet was distinct from UDG's loans and that UDG's Ontario action was an attempt to gain a jurisdictional advantage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her fact-finding, exercise of discretion, or analysis of attornment and forum selection clauses.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Ontario proceedings remained stayed.

The defendants, NSR Toronto and Dapeng Wang, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, oppression, and conspiracy.

The court found that neither moving defendant was a party to the underlying contract, precluding the breach of contract and derivative claims.

The court also held that the oppression remedy under the OBCA did not apply to a BC corporation, and the conspiracy claims lacked the requisite clarity and precision.

The motion was granted, and the claims against the moving defendants were struck without leave to amend.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $260,000.

The court found the requested amounts excessive given the length and complexity of the hearing, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $50,000 to Israel and $36,000 to CTCC, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, Argentine citizens, brought an action in Ontario against the State of Israel and its Canadian fiscal agent, seeking to recover proceeds from two bonds issued by Israel in the name of their great-uncle's estate.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Israel was the more appropriate forum.

The court granted the motion, finding that the presumptive connecting factors to Ontario were weak and rebutted, as the core of the dispute involved contracts formed and torts allegedly committed outside of Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it because Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum based on the location of witnesses, applicable law, and enforcement considerations.

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a lower court's decision to permanently stay their underlying action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens and forum selection clauses.

They also sought an order expediting the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed both requests, applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for stays pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court also denied the request to expedite the appeal, finding no urgency.

The Safe Harbour defendants sought to schedule a motion for partial summary judgment.

The plaintiff opposed, citing the recent Court of Appeal decision in *Malik v. Attia*, which set out three requests for judges considering partial summary judgment motions.

The court applied the "bright line rule" from *Mason v. Perras Mongenais* and *Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP*, finding that a risk of duplication or inconsistent verdicts existed due to common issues, including the limitation period and the cause of the land re-designation.

The court also considered the cost-effectiveness of proceeding with a partial summary judgment.

The motion to schedule the partial summary judgment was refused.

The plaintiffs sought interim relief by way of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against five properties and an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA), specifically the appointment of an inspector to audit financial information.

The court dismissed the request for a CPL, finding that the plaintiffs had no direct interest in the properties, which were corporate assets, and that a CPL would cause disproportionate harm to the defendants.

However, the court granted the request for an inspector, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and established a prima facie case of oppression based on their termination, inconsistent treatment as an employee versus partner, and denial of financial information.

The court determined that an inspector was necessary to clarify commingled funds and determine the plaintiffs' interests, with costs to be borne by the plaintiffs initially.

The defendants brought a motion to amend the class definition in a certified data breach class action.

They sought to narrow the class to persons who had active leases or loans with Nissan during a specific period, based on evidence that the stolen data sample only contained information from that timeframe.

They also sought to exclude corporate customers.

The court granted the motion to amend the timeframe, finding it supported by the evidence, but declined to exclude corporate customers at this stage, holding that the issue of whether corporations can claim intrusion upon seclusion should be determined as a separate question of law.

Following a partially successful certification motion in a privacy breach class action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $532,162.17.

The court found the requested amount excessive and unreasonable due to over-litigating, over-staffing, and over-docketing.

Noting the plaintiffs' mixed success and last-minute changes to their case that prejudiced the defendants, the court reduced a reasonable starting point of $160,000 by half, awarding the plaintiffs $80,000 all-inclusive.

The moving parties sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from selling securities in a real estate development project pursuant to a put option agreement, or alternatively, an order freezing the sale proceeds under Rule 45.02.

The court found that while the moving parties might suffer irreparable harm if the proceeds were repatriated out of Canada, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had a valid third-party offer and faced an impending mortgage expiry.

The court also held that the sale proceeds did not constitute a specific fund under Rule 45.02 as the moving parties' claim was essentially for damages.

The motion was dismissed, with leave to renew if the current sale transaction failed to close.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Nissan following a data breach where an unknown employee accessed and stole the personal information of thousands of customers, demanding a ransom.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court certified common issues relating to vicarious liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, aggregate damages, and punitive damages, while narrowing the proposed class definition.

The individual defendants, officers and directors of BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim against them, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged various torts including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleading failed to establish a basis for personal liability against the individual defendants, as their alleged actions were within their corporate capacity, and the elements for the pleaded torts were not properly established.

Leave to amend was granted, and costs were awarded to the individual defendants.