R. Evans

The plaintiffs appealed an Associate Justice's order granting the defendant security for costs.

The underlying action challenged an arbitration decision that ordered the plaintiffs to transfer a domain name to the defendant.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant unreasonably chose Ontario as the jurisdiction for the dispute, making the security for costs order unjust.

The Superior Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's conclusion that the defendant's choice of Ontario, where the domain registrar was located, was reasonable given the plaintiffs' use of a privacy registration service.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, a Spanish law firm, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, sued the defendant for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the status of patent applications in Panama and Costa Rica, which had lapsed.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for the tort of misrepresentation occurring in Ontario, as the plaintiff had not provided the necessary powers of attorney in time and the defendant had not provided incorrect information.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed.

The applicant owns two adjacent lots used for aggregate extraction.

The Planning Board took the position that one of the lots was zoned Rural, prohibiting extraction.

The applicant applied for a declaration under the Aggregate Resources Act that no zoning by-law prohibits the operation of pits and quarries on the lot, arguing it had a legal non-conforming use.

The court found that the lot had been used continuously for aggregate extraction since 1952, prior to the zoning by-law, and that the use had not been abandoned or intensified.

The court granted the declaration, confirming the legal non-conforming use.