Reuben Rothstein

Following the vacating of an ex parte order due to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the respondent sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, declining to award a higher scale as the applicant's conduct was not reprehensible.

The court allowed recovery for the value of work performed by the respondent's US counsel in drafting affidavits, noting that while foreign counsel cannot charge legal fees in Ontario, a fair and reasonable amount for the preparation work should be indemnified to avoid a windfall to the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 all-inclusive.

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

The appellants commenced an action for fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression, which an associate justice stayed under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, based on arbitration clauses in the parties' agreements.

The appellants appealed to a Superior Court judge, who dismissed the appeal on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the further appeal, noting that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a court's decision to stay a proceeding under s. 7(1).

The defendants, Quintet Ventures Inc. and related entities, brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, citing arbitration clauses in the Share Purchase Agreement and Shareholders Agreement.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Spasiw and Astute Ventures Ltd., opposed the motion, arguing that their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and oppression, along with equitable remedies, fell outside the arbitration clauses, and that a stay would violate their Charter rights.

The court found the pith and substance of the plaintiffs' claims to be contractual, falling within the broad scope of the arbitration agreements.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding legal incapacity, invalidity of the agreement, non-arbitrability of the subject matter, undue delay, and alleged Charter violations.

The motion to stay the action was granted, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs.

The appellant, Johnson Controls Canada LP, appealed a summary judgment that awarded the respondent, John Maynard, full entitlement under his employment contract, including the value of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs).

Maynard was terminated without cause, and his compensation included RSUs subject to a forfeiture provision he was unaware of.

The motion judge found the exclusion of RSUs from the termination payment calculation breached the contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Johnson Controls could not force Maynard to sign a release based on an improperly calculated amount and that the RSUs were part of his compensation entitlement.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages after being terminated without cause.

The employer argued the employment contract limited termination pay to base salary and required the plaintiff to sign a release to receive an enhanced lump sum.

The court found the contract language was not sufficiently clear to exclude the value of unvested Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) and bonuses from the notice period compensation.

The court also held it was unreasonable for the employer to withhold the lump sum payment because the plaintiff refused to sign a release while the compensation amount was in dispute.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $427,891.18.

The plaintiff brought a motion for substitutional service, extension of a prior order, and a contempt order against the defendant, who had failed to comply with an order to place disputed cryptocurrency assets with a neutral custodian.

The court granted substitutional service by email, noting the defendant's sophistication with technology and his evasion of personal service.

The court extended the prior order and issued a warrant for the defendant's arrest under Rule 60.11(4) to compel his attendance at a contempt hearing, emphasizing the need for his participation in the novel legal issues surrounding blockchain technology.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion for a preservation order and an Anton Piller order, alleging the defendant stole $15 million in digital assets.

The court found a strong prima facie case of conversion and noted the defendant's efforts to conceal his identity and transactions.

The court granted the preservation order to freeze the specific digital tokens and the Anton Piller order to allow search and seizure of the defendant's wallet passwords, emphasizing that the law applies to the internet and digital assets.