Rohit Ramesh Kumar

Bell Canada brought an application seeking declarations, an injunction, and a mandatory order against Cloudwifi Inc. and Gary Kenning for allegedly wrongful access and use of Bell's telecommunications equipment and breach of a prior settlement agreement.

Cloudwifi responded with a motion to dismiss or stay Bell's application, asserting the CRTC's exclusive jurisdiction, and a cross-application seeking declarations and damages against Bell.

The court dismissed Cloudwifi's motion to stay as moot due to a prior CRTC decision.

It found that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the regulatory aspects of equipment access, but the court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the alleged breach of the settlement agreement.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Bell's application, finding no breach of the settlement agreement and declining to issue declarations on regulatory matters.

Cloudwifi's cross-application was also dismissed, as it was conditional on the motion's outcome and involved claims better suited for an action.

The appellant sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to assert an alternative claim for a 33% ownership interest in the corporation, based on the theory that escrow release conditions had not been satisfied.

The motion judge denied the amendment, finding it constituted a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proposed amendments did not assert a new cause of action but rather sought alternative relief based on material facts already pleaded in the original Statement of Claim.

The court found no presumed or actual non-compensable prejudice to the respondents.

The parties made written submissions on costs following a motion where the plaintiff sought leave to amend the Statement of Claim.

Success on the motion was divided; the plaintiff was unsuccessful on the primary issue but successful on two subsidiary issues.

The court found the defendants were the more successful parties but reduced their costs award by 50% to reflect their failure to consent to the amendments on which the plaintiff succeeded.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants $6,000 in costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to include an alternative claim for a 33.3% ownership interest in the defendant corporation, based on written agreements, and to expand his oppression remedy claim to include his status as a creditor.

The court denied leave for the 33.3% ownership claim, finding it constituted a new cause of action barred by the limitation period, as it was based on a different factual matrix than the original 50% ownership claim.

However, leave was granted to amend the oppression remedy claim to include 'and/or creditor,' as this was deemed an alternative legal conclusion arising from the same factual matrix already pleaded.

Following a summary judgment motion where success was divided, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The parties had previously agreed to cap costs at $20,000 for the successful party.

Finding that the responding party was more successful based on the issues proceeding to trial, the court ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $10,000.

This is a costs ruling following a successful application by Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 627 to enforce an arbitration agreement and award against the Grandview respondents, and to set aside a solicitors' charging order claimed by Blaney McMurtry LLP.

The applicant sought costs on various scales against both sets of respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the Grandview respondents for their failure to comply with the arbitration agreement and award, and partial indemnity costs against Blaney McMurtry LLP as the unsuccessful party regarding the charging order.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to enforce an arbitration agreement and award, which required the transfer of property from the developer respondents free of encumbrances.

The respondent law firm, Blaney McMurtry LLP, opposed this, asserting a valid solicitors' charging order over the same property for unpaid legal fees.

The court considered whether to set aside or vary the charging orders and whether to enforce the arbitration award.

The court found that the charging orders improperly covered property not "recovered or preserved" through the solicitors' work and set them aside as against the transfers to the condominium.

Consequently, the arbitration agreement and award were enforced and incorporated into a judgment.