Nadia Chiesa

The moving party brought an urgent motion for a stay pending appeal, which was adjourned and ultimately became moot when her motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The responding estate trustees and the Children's Lawyer sought their costs of the stay motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties were required to oppose the stay motion due to the broad relief initially sought and the urgency claimed by the moving party.

Applying the principles from Sawdon Estate, the court made a blended costs order, fixing the responding parties' full indemnity costs and directing the moving party to pay a partial indemnity portion, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

The plaintiff lawyer sued the defendant client for unpaid legal fees and included privileged communications in the statement of claim.

The defendant moved to strike the privileged paragraphs, arguing he had not waived solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that a client's refusal to pay legal fees does not constitute an implied waiver of privilege.

However, the court declined to strike the pleadings, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to include privileged information necessary to advance the claim.

To protect the privilege, the court ordered the file sealed.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 39.03 to examine a non-party lawyer and accountant regarding an estate freeze transaction, and for the production of their files.

The responding parties opposed the examination and production of the lawyer's file on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the responding parties implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied entirely on the moving party's misrepresentations when signing the estate freeze documents.

The motion was granted, and the non-parties were ordered to produce relevant documents and attend examinations.

Acasi Machinery Inc. brought a motion to stay an action commenced by Jeremy Kessler Canadian Mustard Inc. o/a Kozlik’s Mustard in Ontario, arguing that a forum selection clause in their contract mandated disputes be resolved in Florida.

The court dismissed the motion, finding strong reasons to avoid the clause.

The clause was neither negotiated nor brought to Kozlik's attention, indicating an unequal bargaining power.

The court also applied the Moran principle, stating that manufacturers should expect to defend negligence claims where their products are used, and noted that the availability of Zoom reduces the significance of witness location in determining the convenient forum.

Ontario was found to have a real and substantial connection and to be the convenient forum.

The court issued a costs endorsement and corrigendum following the dismissal of the responding parties' motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court was informed of two unaccepted offers to settle made by one of the parties seeking costs.

The court also corrected an error regarding funds held as security for costs, clarifying they were solely for the benefit of one party.

The court increased the costs awarded to the party who made the offers to $22,500, finding the requested $35,000 disproportionate for a 1.5-hour motion.

A separate costs award of $7,500 was maintained for the other parties seeking costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a come-back motion concerning ex parte injunctions.

The applicant successfully continued a Family Law Act preservation order against her former spouse but failed to continue a Mareva order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The court determined costs based on divided success, reasonableness of conduct, and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant costs against the former spouse and the other respondents costs against the applicant, with deferred payment terms for the applicant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $15,000 in costs to the responding parties.

The applicant brought a motion to continue an ex parte FLA Preservation Order against her former spouse and a Mareva Order against his family members and corporate affiliates.

The applicant alleged that the respondent spouse had dissipated tens of millions of dollars from the sale of a business to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and continued the FLA Preservation Order against the respondent spouse to prevent further depletion of his remaining assets.

However, the court dissolved the Mareva Order against the family members and affiliates, finding no demonstrated risk that they would remove or dissipate the assets from the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for early documentary discovery before the close of pleadings, seeking the identities of the tenant's employees who resided at the leased property when a fire occurred, as well as the production of the tenant's insurance policies.

The court granted the request for the employees' names and contact information, applying the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.04 to allow the plaintiff to properly name the John Doe defendants and avoid future delays.

However, the court dismissed the request for early production of the insurance policies, finding it premature prior to the delivery of an affidavit of documents.

The moving party Plaintiffs ("AFEX") sought a continuation of an ex parte Mareva injunction against the Defendants (MBM Trading, Mendel Streicher, and Emmeco Inc.).

AFEX's claim arose from six USD wire transactions totaling over $845,000 that were initiated by MBM but subsequently rejected by MBM's financial institutions due to insufficient funds or frozen accounts.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, inferring that Streicher knew or was wilfully blind to the frozen status of his accounts when initiating the transactions.

The court rejected the Defendants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and the absence of a signed account agreement, finding that the parties' conduct implied an agreement to Ontario jurisdiction and that a mediation clause did not preclude urgent interlocutory relief.

The court also found a serious risk of asset dissipation, noting Streicher's lack of transparency regarding the use of AFEX funds and his rapid repayment of other creditors.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the MBM Defendants were ordered to provide a sworn statement of worldwide assets and submit to examinations.

The defendant, Recipe Unlimited Corporation, moved to strike the plaintiff's (Angus Inc.) Statement of Claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), alleging failure to plead material facts for claims of inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and "misrepresentation in the marketplace." The court dismissed the motion regarding inducing breach of contract and intentional interference, finding the pleadings sufficient.

However, the claim for "misrepresentation in the marketplace" interpreted as injurious falsehood, was struck with leave to amend due to insufficient particulars of malice and intent to induce non-dealing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to preserve $2 million seized by the RCMP in related criminal proceedings, which had previously been ordered paid into court in the civil proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's counterclaim under Rule 21.

The RCMP brought a motion to quash a summons directed at an RCMP officer to provide evidence for a pending contempt motion.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim, and dismissed the RCMP's motion to quash the summons, providing directions for obtaining the necessary documents.

The plaintiff, a mortgage lender, suffered a loss when a required postponement of a prior charge was not obtained, leaving it as a third mortgagee rather than a first mortgagee.

The title insurer acknowledged coverage and paid the bulk of the loss after the property was sold under power of sale.

The plaintiff sued to recover approximately $40,000 in disputed property maintenance expenses and legal fees incurred by its independently retained counsel, as well as a determination on the interest calculation.

The court reduced the claimed expenses and legal fees, finding that some costs lacked strict proof, involved personal benefit to the plaintiff's principal, and were unnecessary given the insurer's early concession of coverage.

The court also ruled that interest was to be calculated and compounded semi-annually.

The appellants challenged the refusal to stay an Ontario action arising from contractual arrangements negotiated and signed in Ontario concerning Nigerian oil and gas assets, while parallel proceedings had been commenced in Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal held that comity is not a stand-alone consideration but is embedded in the forum non conveniens analysis, and found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario had jurisdiction and that Nigeria was not clearly the more appropriate forum.

The court also refused to consider proposed fresh evidence consisting of reasons from the Nigerian court because those reasons were available before the motion below and did not satisfy the Palmer test.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants brought a jurisdiction motion seeking to stay an Ontario action arising from a cross-border commercial relationship involving a Nigerian oil and gas opportunity.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the foundational agreements were made in Ontario and one agreement contained an Ontario governing law and attornment clause.

Applying the forum selection and forum non conveniens principles, the court found no rebuttal of the presumptive connecting factor and held that Nigeria was not clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding them liable for negligence in placing an investment for the respondent.

The respondent, an inexperienced investor, had given funds to the individual appellant to invest in a high-risk bond on her behalf.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal with respect to the corporate appellant, finding no evidence of vicarious liability.

However, the court dismissed the appeal for the individual appellant, holding that as a gratuitous agent, he owed a duty of care which he breached by failing to heed warnings in the offering memorandum and proceeding with the investment.