Ryan Treleaven

The applicant sought costs following a successful application to enforce a New York judgment in Ontario concerning the sale of a painting.

The court had previously permitted enforcement of the foreign judgment but stayed execution pending the outcome of an appeal in New York.

The applicant requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the respondent had repeatedly attempted to relitigate issues already decided and had engaged in delay tactics through multiple proceedings and appeals.

The court agreed that the respondent’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs but reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about the involvement of multiple senior counsel.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $94,298.28 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant sought to enforce a New York judgment ordering the respondent to deliver a painting purchased by the applicant.

The respondent opposed enforcement, arguing lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, denial of natural justice, and a novel 'comity' defence, while also requesting a stay pending an appeal in New York.

The court rejected all of the respondent's defences, finding the New York court had jurisdiction and its process was fair.

The court ordered that the New York judgment could be enforced in Ontario, but granted a short, conditional stay of enforcement pending the determination of the respondent's ongoing appeal in New York.

A non-share corporation operating a mosque and community centre experienced an internal governance dispute among its members, leading to litigation.

After reviewing affidavit evidence and a monitor’s report, the court highlighted corporate governance errors committed by both sides under Canadian corporate law.

The court encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute without judicial determination.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement providing for an interim executive committee and future elections.

The court approved the settlement, the monitor’s report and activities, and the monitor’s fees.

The applicant sought enforcement in Ontario of letters rogatory issued by a court in Alabama to compel oral examinations of two Ontario residents for use in a U.S. class action proceeding concerning lender‑placed insurance fees.

The intervener, a defendant in the foreign proceeding, opposed the request on the basis that the proposed evidence would be duplicative, unnecessary, and obtainable elsewhere.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Evidence Act and the Canada Evidence Act, along with the discretionary factors governing enforcement of foreign letters of request.

The court found that the preconditions for enforcement were met and that the witnesses likely possessed relevant and unique firsthand knowledge not otherwise obtainable.

In light of international comity and the relevance of the proposed evidence, the court enforced the letters rogatory and ordered the examinations to proceed.

The cross-appellants (the sellers) appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of business inventory sold to the respondents (the buyers).

The trial judge had awarded damages to the buyers but reduced the award by 20 percent due to contributory negligence.

On appeal, the sellers argued the buyers did not reasonably rely on the misrepresentation and suffered no detriment, while the buyers argued the finding of contributory negligence was inconsistent with reasonable reliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of reasonable reliance, detriment, and contributory negligence were supported by the evidence and could co-exist.

A non-share religious corporation experienced an internal governance dispute between competing factions claiming authority over its executive committee.

The applicant sought urgent interim relief including supervision of the organization’s financial affairs pending a scheduled injunction motion.

The court emphasized corporate law principles governing non-share corporations, including transparency, procedural fairness, and adherence to constitutional documents and by-laws.

On consent of the parties, the court appointed an independent monitor under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to oversee the organization’s finances, records, and issuance of charitable tax receipts, and ordered that no membership meetings occur before the upcoming hearing.

The monitor was granted access to records and a limited administrative charge for fees.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appellant's appeal from an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal granted the motions and quashed the appeal, finding that the appellant had appealed to the wrong court.

The proper appeal route was to a panel of the Divisional Court on a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.