Peter Leigh

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss or stay the respondents' claim for non-payment under a promissory note.

The appellant argued that Delaware was the appropriate forum based on a forum selection clause in a related agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Delaware had no appropriate connection to the dispute and that Ontario was the clearly more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The court granted a vexatious litigant order against Abu Ubaida Amin and his corporations, barring them from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings in Ontario without leave of the court.

The decision details Mr. Amin’s extensive and unsuccessful litigation history, including numerous proceedings against a wide range of parties, repeated complaints to regulatory bodies, and persistent inappropriate communications with counsel and the court.

The court found that nearly all hallmarks of vexatious litigation were present and that Mr. Amin’s conduct placed an inordinate burden on the justice system.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendant, OTO.Coach Inc., brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiffs' claim for breach of a promissory note, arguing that Delaware was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The plaintiffs, OW Technologies, LLC and OW International, LLC, sought payment of over $1.8 million USD under the promissory note.

The court found that Delaware did not have an appropriate connection to the claim, as the promissory note was governed by Ontario law, OTO's headquarters are in Ontario, and the plaintiffs were not party to the related agreement of purchase and sale (APS) or its forum selection clause.

The court dismissed OTO's motion to stay the action, concluding that Ontario was the more appropriate forum.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 in favour of the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought to enforce two arbitration awards totaling over $4 million against the respondent real estate developer.

Pending the hearing of the enforcement application and the respondent's application to set aside the awards for reasonable apprehension of bias, the applicant moved for a preservation order under Rule 45.01 or a Mareva injunction to prevent the respondent from dissipating its remaining assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 45.01 was inapplicable because the applicant claimed no property interest in the assets, and a Mareva injunction was unwarranted because the applicant failed to establish a real risk that the respondent would dissipate its assets to avoid judgment.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The appellant appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity regarding antipsychotic medications and a Community Treatment Plan (CTP).

The appellant argued the Board erred in fact and law by misapprehending evidence and misapplying statutory tests under the Health Care Consent Act and Mental Health Act.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, found the Board's decisions were reasonable, as it properly weighed the evidence of physicians and family, and correctly applied the legal tests for capacity and CTO issuance.

The appeal was dismissed.