Sabrina Salituro

The applicant successfully applied to enforce a $2 million judgment from a United States District Court against the respondent.

Following the decision, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $33,373.40.

The court awarded the requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's unaccepted Rule 49 offer to settle and the respondent's unfounded allegations of fraud against the applicant's foreign counsel.

The applicant, Dead End Survival, LLC, sought to enforce a judgment from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division against the respondent, Georgi Marhasin (operating as Marhasin Warehouse).

The foreign judgment included a permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement, unfair competition, fraud, and other torts.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the matter should have proceeded by action, not application, and defended on grounds of fraud and public policy (excessive statutory damages).

The court dismissed the preliminary objection, finding an application appropriate due to no material factual disputes.

The court also rejected the fraud defence, noting the respondent's failure to defend in the foreign proceedings and the lack of new material facts.

The public policy defence regarding excessive damages was also dismissed, as U.S. trademark law was not contrary to Canadian justice, and the defence does not bar enforcement merely because damages differ from Canadian awards.

The application to enforce the foreign judgment was granted.

The applicant, Dead End Survival, LLC, sought to enforce a foreign judgment from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division, which included a permanent injunction and statutory damages for trademark infringement.

The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding the form of proceeding (application vs. action) and substantive defenses of fraud and public policy (excessive damages).

The court dismissed the preliminary objection, finding an application appropriate due to no material factual disputes.

The court also rejected the fraud defense, noting the allegations were not new and could have been raised in the foreign proceedings, and the public policy defense, affirming that foreign damages exceeding Canadian awards do not inherently violate public policy.

The application to enforce the foreign judgment was granted.

The court heard three procedural motions in a $100 million commercial dispute involving allegations of breach of contract and breach of confidence.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiffs to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery, which the court largely granted, ordering the plaintiffs to provide development timelines and material facts supporting their group enterprise claims.

The plaintiffs brought two motions: one to strike the defendants' response to a request to admit an incomplete affidavit, and another to compel updated answers regarding expert witnesses.

The court dismissed both of the plaintiffs' motions, noting the defendants' ongoing obligation to correct discovery answers under the Rules of Civil Procedure.