Peter Ws Choe

This decision concerns the costs awarded following a successful motion by Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and being frivolous/vexatious.

The court fixed costs at $25,603.51, payable by the plaintiff to Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. delayed in bringing the motion and that the plaintiff's impecuniosity warranted a significant reduction in costs.

The court applied Rule 49.10, awarding Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. partial indemnity costs up to its offer to settle date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, finding its "walk-away" offer to be a valid compromise in the context of a motion to strike.

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 respondent retailers brought a motion to strike an application by an animal rights organization and its founder, who sought a declaration that the use of glue traps by members of the public violates the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code and the OSPCA Act.

The court found that the applicants did not meet the threshold for public interest standing, as a declaratory application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issue to court when other avenues, such as private prosecutions or complaints to enforcement bodies, had not been pursued.

The motion to strike was granted in part.

The appellant brought four related actions against various respondents arising from dealings that occurred primarily in the United States between 2001 and 2016.

The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the actions on the ground that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a real and substantial connection to the province.

The motion judges granted the motions and dismissed all actions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ontario jurisdiction existed based on: (1) consulting contracts allegedly entered into at Toronto airport; (2) products being advertised, marketed, and distributed in Ontario; and (3) respondents carrying on business in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and affirming that mere advertising or distribution through third-party retailers does not constitute carrying on business in the jurisdiction.

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.

Apotex appealed a trial judge's decision allowing Bayer to elect an accounting for profits as a remedy for patent infringement and directing a referee to count all infringing capsules sold by Apotex.

Apotex argued that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof, misconstrued the patent, and erred in finding a causal link between the infringement and all profits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to award an accounting for profits or in the direction to the referee, as Apotex's product infringed the patent in its entirety.