R. He

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a CIETAC arbitral award issued in China.

The respondent resisted enforcement on the grounds of incapacity and public policy, alleging that he signed the underlying repayment agreement under threat, coercion, and mental distress.

The court held that those allegations had already been raised before and rejected by the arbitral tribunal, and that the respondent's position amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the award.

Applying the limited refusal grounds under the New York Convention and Model Law, the court found no viable basis to deny enforcement and granted judgment in accordance with the award.

The defendant was substantially successful on a motion to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien and dismiss the primary causes of action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $31,817.06, arguing a pre-motion letter constituted an offer to settle.

The court found the letter was merely a demand, not an offer to settle, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

After considering the divided success on some arguments and the complexity of the motion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant moved to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, vacate registrations, and dismiss the action, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff claimed it was the general contractor via an unwritten equitable assignment from the original contractor.

The court found no triable issue regarding the validity of the assignment, meaning the plaintiff was a subcontractor whose lien rights had expired.

The court discharged the lien and dismissed the breach of contract and breach of trust claims, but allowed the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims to proceed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff developer brought an action for breach of contract arising from an aborted sale of a subdivision house, and the defendant purchaser alleged undue influence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Following cross-examinations, both parties agreed the factual issues were discrete and appropriate for summary judgment.

The court agreed, scheduled the summary judgment motion for a half-day hearing, and established a timetable for the remaining steps, including a refusals motion.