SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO: CV-13-488055
DATE: 20131216

RE: 2060770 Ontario Inc. and Maya Records Inc.

Applicants

• and -

Mitchell Worsoff

Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kevin Whitaker

COUNSEL: James Diamond,
for the Applicants

Tanya N. Road,
for the Respondent

HEARD: December 9, 2013

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The applicants are Ontario corporations owned and controlled by Maya Worsoff (“Maya”). The respondent, Mitch Worsoff, (“Mitch”) is Maya’s former husband.

[2] After starting family law proceedings in California USA against Maya, Mitch registered three notices of unsecured interests against the properties in Toronto owned by the applicants. The applicants are not parties to the California litigation.

[3] Mitch claims to have a “spousal” interest in the property. There is no matrimonial litigation initiated by Mitch before the court and between the parties in Ontario, other than this present application. There are no proceedings between the parties under the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 or the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp).

[4] The applicants seek to discharge the three notices off title.

[5] Mitch seeks to stay the application to discharge.

[6] Mitch concedes that this court has jurisdiction to hear the application but argues that the court should decline to hear the matter based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

[7] Mitch has not obtained any order from this court to enforce or recognize any order from the California litigation.

[8] On November 6, 2013, Mitch served and filed a Notice of Appearance in this application.

[9] There are no pending proceedings against the applicants.

[10] Having filed a Notice of Appearance, Mitch has attorned to the jurisdiction of this court. As he has attorned, the principles of forum non conveniens do not apply.

[11] It is clear from Mitch’s notice of motion that he is seeking a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43. This provision grants the court a broad discretion to stay any proceeding on “such terms as are considered just”.

[12] In Diamond v. 996087 Ontario Limited (2013), ONSC 5612, this court indicated that an applicant seeking a stay must meet a high threshold. A stay should only be granted in the “clearest of cases” and should be “exercised sparingly”.

[13] There is no final order here. The court will not recognize or enforce a foreign order, for interim or interlocutory relief.

[14] Mitch has asserted no interest against the applicants and the applicants are not parties to the California proceedings.

[15] The respondent has not satisfied me that it is just in the circumstances to exercise my discretion to order a stay. The motion to stay is dismissed and the application is allowed.

[16] I have reviewed the parties’ costs submissions. Having regard to the factors which should guide my discretion to award costs, the applicants are entitled to their costs inclusive of taxes and disbursements, fixed at $10,000.00 payable forthwith.

[17] Order accordingly.

Whitaker J.

DATE: December 16, 2013