CITATION: Wembley Marketing Ltd. v. Itex Corporation, 2007 ONCA 257
DATE: 20070410
DOCKET: C45771
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DOHERTY, LASKIN and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
WEMBLEY MARKETING LTD. and ARIZA TECHNOLOGY INC.
Plaintiffs (Appellant)
and
ITEX CORPORATION and CABLE NETWORK NEWS LPLLP
Defendants (Respondents)
Brett D. Moldaver the appellants
Sean G. Foran for the respondent ITEX and David E. Lederman for the respondent CNN
Heard: April 5, 2007
On appeal from the order of Justice Keenan of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 24, 2006.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] We read the rule as giving the motion judge a discretion to stay the entire proceeding. It was obviously preferable that the actions of both plaintiffs proceed together. The motion judge was told that steps were being taken to revive Wembley. Once Wembley is revived, there is no reason to think that the case cannot proceed. It was appropriate in the interests of the efficient conduct of litigation to stay the entire proceedings for a relatively brief time until Wembley was revived.
[2] We are told that Wembley has taken the necessary steps to regain its status and that a motion has been brought to lift the stay returnable next month. Should something arise justifying the continuation of the stay against Wembley only, Ariza can bring a motion in the trial court seeking to lift the stay as against it pursuant to the order of Kennan J.
[3] The appeal is dismissed.
[4] Costs to ITEX in the amount of $3,000 “all in” and costs to CNN in the amount of $2,000 “all in”.