Ryan T. Evans

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interim/interlocutory injunction.

The court was asked to fix the partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff to the successful defendants.

The decision reviews the parties' costs outlines, considering the complexity and importance of the issues, the time spent by counsel, and the applicable factors under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court fixed the defendants' partial indemnity costs at $230,000.

The plaintiff, Vaultose Digital Asset Services Inc., sought an interim and interlocutory worldwide injunction to restrain the defendants from developing, monetizing, using, or disclosing technology related to the "QDS Platform," alleging breach of confidentiality covenants.

The defendants, including Tilo Kunz and William Yakamovich, denied misuse of confidential information, asserting their work relied on public knowledge and prior experience.

Concurrently, the defendants moved for security for costs.

The court applied the "strong prima facie case" test for the injunction due to its intrusive nature.

The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for breach of confidence or misuse of confidential information, noting the vagueness of the alleged information and lack of specific evidence.

The injunction motion was dismissed.

The defendants' motion for security for costs was granted, with the plaintiff ordered to pay $121,000 in security for anticipated partial indemnity costs through discovery and mediation, plus $25,000 for the security for costs motion.

The appellant, an Ontario corporation, appealed the dismissal of its action against a Spanish law firm for alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding patent applications.

The action was dismissed at first instance for lack of jurisdiction, as the motion judge found the appellant failed to establish a good arguable case for the factual allegations underpinning jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding presumptive connecting factors and the requirement to establish a "good arguable case" for jurisdictional facts.

The Court also rejected allegations of judicial bias and dismissed a motion for leave to appeal costs, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The applicants sought to enforce two letters rogatory issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel documentary and oral evidence from the respondent, a non-party in the underlying U.S. patent infringement litigation.

The respondent opposed, arguing the requests were overly broad, moot due to discovery deadlines, and contrary to public policy as they sought proprietary source codes.

The court granted the applications, enforcing the letters rogatory but narrowing their scope and imposing protective conditions, including compliance with a supplemental protective order and the deemed undertaking rule.

The applicant sought to enforce a Letter of Request issued by a United States District Court for documentary discovery and depositions of the respondent, a non-party in the U.S. litigation.

The respondent objected to the scope of documentary discovery and the length of the depositions.

The court granted the application, finding the applicant met the requirements for enforcing the Letter of Request, and ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents and attend two days of depositions.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $3,500 in costs.

At a preliminary hearing, the accused was charged with one count of criminal harassment, one count of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, thirteen counts of breaching a court order, and thirteen counts of breaching a probation order.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on the criminal harassment charge and the threat charge.

However, the court discharged the accused on the section 127 breach of court order counts, finding that the Provincial Offences Act and Family Law Act expressly provide an alternative mode of proceeding and punishment for breaches of restraining orders, thereby ousting the application of section 127 of the Criminal Code.

The court also discharged counts relating to communications with adult children, finding the restraining order did not apply to them at the time of the alleged breaches.