Not applicable

The Crown applied for a General Production Order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code to compel Binance Holdings Ltd/Nest Services Ltd to disclose specific records to the Norfolk Police.

Binance/Nest disputed the Canadian court's jurisdiction, suggesting the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty (MLAT) was the proper avenue.

The court rejected this argument, finding it had jurisdiction based on the corporate entity's virtual presence and a real and substantial connection to Canada, as established by factors including legacy accounts, transaction fees, Canadian employees, and Canadian purchases.

The production order was granted.

The Crown applied for a General Production Order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code to compel Binance Holdings Ltd/Nest Services Ltd to disclose specific records to the Norfolk Police.

Binance/Nest disputed the Canadian court's jurisdiction, suggesting the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty (MLAT) was the proper avenue.

The court rejected this argument, finding it had jurisdiction based on the corporate entity's virtual presence and a real and substantial connection to Canada, as established by factors including legacy accounts, transaction fees, Canadian employees, and Canadian purchases.

The production order was granted.

This endorsement concerns the approval of an amended distribution protocol for a certified and settled class action against Robert Bosch GmbH.

Due to a larger-than-anticipated residue in the settlement fund, the Representative Plaintiffs requested a revised protocol to distribute the remaining funds pro-rata among direct benefit claimants who had cashed their cheques.

The court approved the proposed distribution, including a final distribution of any remaining residue to the Law Foundation of Ontario’s Access to Justice Fund.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered dismissing an action initiated by the plaintiffs under Rule 2.1 for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, specifically identifying it as an 'Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument' (OPCA).

Despite being warned to provide a legally recognizable claim, the plaintiffs responded with further nonsensical and abusive communications.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action without further analysis.

Emmanuel Village Residence Inc. (EVR) brought a motion to increase an administration charge in a receivership proceeding, which had been consolidated with a forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) under the Civil Remedies Act.

The AGO opposed the increase and the continuation of a sealing order.

The court granted EVR's motion, increasing the administration charge from $350,000 to $700,000, finding that it would be "clearly not in the interests of justice" to deny payment to the professionals facilitating the sale of the property.

The court also granted the continuation of the sealing order until the property is sold.