Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2022-08-19 Docket: M53300 (C69465)

Before: Huscroft, Harvison Young and Sossin JJ.A.

Between:

Dik Lee Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)

And:

Magna International Inc., Cosma International Inc., Venest Industries Inc., Mike Rooke, Gina Aiello, Joel Minor, Joel Willick and Steven Thususka Defendants (Respondents/Responding Parties)

Counsel: Dik Lee, acting in person Laura J. Freitag, for the respondents

Heard: August 17, 2022

On appeal from the order of Justice Paul S. Rouleau of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated March 17, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant seeks to set aside or vary the order of Rouleau J.A., sitting as motion judge, which dismissed his request for a stay pending appeal of this court’s order dismissing his appeal from the order of Diamond J., which denied the appellant leave to amend his pleading to add a claim for negligence or gross negligence against directors and officers of Magna International Inc.

[2] We see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s order. The motion judge applied the law governing the grant of a stay pending appeal set out in RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] S.C.R. 311 and Livent Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 2016 ONCA 395, 131 O.R. (3d) 784, at para. 4. He found that the motion failed because the appellant did not demonstrate either irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured the stay. His findings are amply supported by the record and are entitled to deference.

[3] The appellant’s arguments essentially invite this court to reconsider the motion judge’s findings. There is no basis to do so. Even assuming that the appellant could establish that there is a serious question to be tried, as the motion judge said the appellant may pursue his claim if he succeeds in getting leave at the Supreme Court and succeeds on the appeal. There is no irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favours the action proceeding.

[4] Finally, there is no merit to the appellant’s suggestion that the motion judge’s involvement in the substantive decision gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The presumption of judicial integrity and impartiality applies and there is no basis to conclude that it has been rebutted.

[5] The motion is dismissed.

[6] The respondent is entitled to costs, fixed in the amount of $2,000, all inclusive.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”

“A Harvison Young J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”