Sahar Talebi

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of two Ukrainian judgments against the respondent in Ontario.

The respondent opposed the application on three grounds: (1) the amendment seeking to enforce a 2022 BVI judgment recognizing the Ukrainian judgments was impermissible as a derivative judgment; (2) the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002; and (3) the Ukrainian judgments violated natural justice.

The court found the application was statute-barred, as the limitation period for enforcement commenced when the Ukrainian judgments became final in 2018, not when the 2022 BVI judgment was rendered.

The court also found that seeking enforcement of the 2022 BVI judgment constituted an impermissible derivative judgment.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Xuan Wu, underwent a Brazilian Butt Lift at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute and subsequently developed a significant infection.

She sued Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his clinic, alleging that she did not provide informed consent because she was not made aware of the risk of infection.

The court found that informed consent was properly obtained through a series of consultations and written materials, and that the process met the legal standard.

The action was dismissed.

The appellants, Amber Baptiste and Every Girl Counts LLC, appealed two Superior Court orders: one recognizing a California judgment against them in favour of the respondent, Michael Goguen, and another allowing enforcement of that judgment by seizing funds in Alberta.

The appellants argued the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over funds outside the province.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Ontario court's in personam jurisdiction over the appellants and CIBC (whose head office is in Ontario), finding it irrelevant that funds were transferred to Alberta.

The court applied principles from *Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje*, emphasizing that requiring assets to be present in the jurisdiction at the time of enforcement is not conducive to fairness in a globalized world.

Costs decision following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction and the dismissal of the defendant XTM's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to either party.

The court awarded net partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to XTM.

The court also awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 to amicus curiae representing the self-represented defendants, and $3,982.69 for disbursements incurred directly by the self-represented defendants.

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

The applicants brought a motion to enforce an interim settlement agreement with the City of Toronto regarding physical distancing standards in the city's shelter system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The City had asserted compliance with the agreement on June 15, 2020, which would trigger the termination of the agreement.

The court found that the City breached the agreement by asserting compliance when it had not used its 'best efforts' to achieve the required physical distancing standards across all sites.

The court ordered the City to continue its pre-compliance reporting obligations until it fully met its obligations under the agreement.

The applicants brought a refusals motion to compel answers and document production from the City of Toronto and Ontario in a Charter application challenging shelter standards during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion sought to enforce an Interim Settlement Agreement regarding physical distancing and bed capacity in shelters.

The court granted the motion in part, finding many of the City's refusals improper regarding system-wide compliance data for the May 15-June 15, 2020 period, but upheld other refusals based on proportionality, particularly concerning the Central Intake service, daily capacity data, and information outside the specified period.