Peter W. Choe

The defendant Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it without leave to amend.

The plaintiff alleged that his identity was stolen and used in a 'straw buy' of a luxury vehicle, and claimed Mercedes was liable in negligence, vicarious liability, and waiver of tort for the actions of its franchisee.

The court found that the statement of claim failed to plead material facts to support a duty of care, breach, causation, or compensable damages in negligence, nor did it support vicarious liability or an agency relationship.

The court struck the claim against Mercedes without leave to amend and dismissed the action against it.

The defendants sought costs after successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that a costs award would deny them access to justice.

The court rejected this argument, noting the action had already been dismissed and impecuniosity does not grant a license to bring baseless actions with impunity.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not meet the threshold of reprehensible behaviour, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $35,000 for fees plus disbursements, noting the plaintiffs' voluminous and vexatious pleadings unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, an inventor and his company, sued multiple foreign corporate and individual defendants for breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement and intellectual property claims.

The court found that the Non-Disclosure Agreement contained a clear forum selection clause designating Massachusetts.

Furthermore, applying the Van Breda test, the court held it lacked jurisdiction simpliciter as none of the presumptive connecting factors were present in Ontario.

The action was dismissed.