Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NOS.: CV-13-115222 and CV-19-140073 DATE: 2020-03-09 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
COURT FILE NO. CV-13-115222 Hydroslotter Corporation Plaintiff – and – Anatoli Nikouline, Maxxwell Production Inc., Anjelika Gretskaia and Nikolai Korvet Defendants
Lewis Taylor, In-Person, Representative for the Plaintiff Anatoli Nikouline and Anjelika Gretskaia, In-Person, Defendants No one appearing for the Defendant, Maxxwell Production Inc. No one appearing for the Defendant, Nikolai Korvet
AND BETWEEN:
COURT FILE NO. CV-19-140073 Hydroslotter Corporation, Falconridge Oil Ltd. and Lewis Taylor Applicants – and – Anatoli Nikouline, Anjelika Gretskaia, Nikolai Korvet and Maxxwell Production Inc. Respondents
Lewis Taylor, In-Person, Representative for the Applicants Anatoli Nikouline and Anjelika Gretskaia, In-Person, Respondents No one appearing for the Respondent, Maxxwell Production Inc. No one appearing for the Respondent Nikolai Korvet
HEARD: February 14, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
CHARNEY J.:
Introduction
[1] The matters before me relate to two related proceedings that have created a bit of a procedural tangle. One of the proceedings is an action, the other proceeding is an application. The plaintiff in the action has brought a motion. The plaintiff in the action has also brought a separate but related application. The parties are all self-represented.
[2] The first proceeding is an action commenced in 2013 by Hydroslotter Corporation (Hydroslotter) against the defendants Anatoli Nikouline, Maxxwell Production Inc., Anjelika Gretskaia and Nikolai Korvet. This will be referred to as the Hydroslotter Action (Court file # CV-13-115222-00).
[3] The second proceeding is an application commenced in 2019 by Hydroslotter, Falconridge Oil Ltd. (Falconridge) and Lewis Taylor. This will be referred to as the Hydroslotter Application (Court file # CV-19-140073-00). The respondents in the Hydroslotter Application are the same persons as the defendants in the Hydroslotter Action.
[4] The common feature in these proceedings is Lewis Taylor, who is the sole shareholder of Hydroslotter and acts as the legal representative for Hydroslotter in both proceedings.
[5] Two matters were scheduled to be heard on February 14, 2020. The first is a motion brought by Hydroslotter to strike out the defendants Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and for an order finding the defendants in contempt of court for failing to comply with previous court orders relating to the disclosure and production of documents in the Hydroslotter Action.
[6] The second matter is the Hydroslotter Application, which includes, inter alia, a claim by the applicants for interim and interlocutory injunctive relief against the respondents to restrain them from publishing allegedly confidential information and defamatory statements about the applicants. No Notice of Motion was served or filed in the Hydroslotter Application.
[7] The Hydroslotter Action and the Hydroslotter Application, and the issues raised in each proceeding, are described in greater detail below.
Hydroslotter Action
[8] The Hydroslotter Action was commenced by Statement of Claim issued on July 3, 2013. It claims various relief, including damages totalling $7.5 million for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of corporate opportunities. The defendant, Anatoli Nikouline, is a former employee of Hydroslotter, and signed confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with Hydroslotter. The Statement of Claim alleges that the defendants violated this confidentiality agreement and misappropriated corporate opportunities and intellectual property.
[9] On July 26, 2013, the defendants filed their Statement of Defence/Counterclaim, alleging that the technology at issue was developed in 1970-1975 and has been in free use around the world since 1985.
[10] The Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim was filed in August 2013.
[11] The Discovery Plan was completed on January 9, 2014, and the plaintiff served its Affidavit of Documents on April 29, 2015.
[12] On March 10, 2017, the defendants served a Notice of Discontinuance of their Counterclaim. The plaintiff did not accept the Discontinuance.
[13] On August 16, 2017, Hydroslotter served an Amended Affidavit of Documents on the defendants.
[14] On February 1, 2018, the defendants served their first Affidavit of Documents on the plaintiff.
[15] On August 30, 2018, the plaintiff brought a motion for a litigation timetable. The defendants consented to the timetable, and an order was granted on August 30, 2018.
[16] Pursuant to this timetable, the defendants Nikouline, Maxxwell and Gretskaia served Amended Affidavits of Documents and Schedule “A” document productions.
[17] By this point in time, none of the parties on either side were represented by counsel.
[18] The defendant, Korvet, did not serve any affidavit of documents. Korvet has resided in Russia since 2013 and has not participated in this case since it was commenced.
The March 7, 2019 Order
[19] On March 7, 2019, Master Sugunasiri ordered the defendants to serve a further and better Affidavit of Documents and Schedule “A” productions by May 6, 2019. No one appeared for the defendants on that motion. His endorsement stated: “I am satisfied that there are gaps in the Defendants’ existing affidavit of documents”. The Order required the defendants to include in a further and better Affidavit of Documents and Schedule “A” productions “all documents listed in the List of Documents for Further and Better Affidavits of Documents and Schedule “A” productions” that was attached to the order (the List of Documents).
[20] The Court also ordered that if the defendants failed to comply with the order to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, the court could strike out their Statement of Defence and dismiss their Counterclaim.
[21] The List of Documents attached to the March 7, 2019 Order required the production of ten categories of documents: (i) the complete corporate documents and the minute books of Maxxwell Production Inc. and 9 companies that the plaintiff alleged are related to Maxxwell (the related companies); (ii) all financial records of each of the defendants and the related companies; (iii) contracts and contract information relating to all providers with whom the defendants are engaged to receive services for all technologies which the defendants promote, market or service; (iv) all commercial documents between the defendants and any individual in the oil and gas industry since 2008; (v) all documents relating to the official filings process of all patents applications which are owned or controlled by the defendants in the oil and gas industry from January 1, 2009 to the present; (vi) all documents related to the field work or implementation of the technologies which are owned or controlled by the defendants in the oil and gas industry from January 1, 2009; (vii) all documents relating to the design, manufacture, fabrication of the tools and or technology which are owned or controlled by the defendants in the oil and gas industry from January 1, 2009 (viii) all appraisals, market value estimates, opinions or determinations of the technology and or patents owned or controlled by the defendants in the oil and gas industry since January 1, 2009; (ix) all correspondence, emails or any other form of communication with any all persons working for or associated with Kuwait Oil Company; and (x) the complete C.V. of the defendant Anjelika Gretskaia.
[22] On May 6, 2019, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendants advising that the defendants’ position was that they had already provided all the documents they considered relevant to the case. The defendants took the position that the March 7, 2019 Order was not legally binding. They expressly refused to provide “the financial documents, contracts, agreements, correspondence, strategic plans, designs, drawings, and video and audio documents” as they were of the view that they were not relevant to the case.
The June 6, 2019 Order
[23] As a result the defendants’ refusal to comply with the March 7, 2019 Order, the plaintiff brought another motion, to be heard on June 6, 2019, for an order to compel the defendants to produce the documents or strike out their Statement of Defence and dismiss their Counterclaim.
[24] The defendants appeared in court this time. On June 6, 2019 Master Muir ordered the defendants to produce the documents listed in the March 7, 2019 Order. He stated:
This is a motion to strike the Defendant’s Statement of Defence. The Order of Master Sugunasiri of March 7, 2019 has not been complied with. The Defendants made submissions about the merits of their defence and Mr. Taylor’s alleged misconduct. None of that is relevant to the motion before the court today which is about non-compliance with a Court Order.
[25] Master Muir concluded that an order striking the defence was not appropriate at that point, noting that the defendants appeared “anxious to defend themselves”. Accordingly, he gave the defendants one more opportunity to comply with the order, and ordered them to:
… produce the documents listed in the March 7, 2019 Order to the extent the documents are in their power, possession, or control. If they are not able to produce the documents they shall explain why they are unable to do so. All of this is to be done by July 31, 2019. This Order is peremptory to the defendants which means that it is their last chance to comply.
July 11, 2019 “List of Documents”
[26] On July 26, 2019, the plaintiff received a “List of Documents” signed by Anatoli Nikouline, and dated July 11, 2019. That list purported to comply with the Order of June 6, 2019.
[27] The list provides disclosure of some additional documents, and provides an itemized explanation for why they are unable (or unwilling) to produce other documents required by the March 7, 2019 Order. To summarize:
i. Nikouline denies owning the 9 related companies listed in the March 7, 2019 Order. While Nikouline did at one time own Maxxwell Production Inc. from November 2012 to December 2017, he states that it conducted no business after 2014, and all possible Maxxwell Production Inc. documents were already produced in the defendants’ earlier Affidavits of Documents. He has also attached a list of all “residual available company information” for Maxxwell Production Inc., including registration documents, correspondence and financial documents. ii. Nikouline takes the position that the financial records required (2009 – 2018) are “personal (private) financial documents” that are “irrelevant to the Plaintiff and to this litigation”. They have, however, filed their tax returns for 2009 to 2018. iii. Nikouline takes the position that this disclosure “is not relevant to prove/evidence filed by the Plaintiff’s charges, only the Plaintiff’s satisfying curiosity, gives him confidential information that he can immediately use for personal gain and confusing legal process”. This paragraph is repeated for each of categories (iii) to (ix). He also appears to take the position that he does not have some of the information requested because “Maxxwell Production is a service company and not an internet company”. iv. Nikouline takes the position that the defendants do not have the right to provide this information to third parties since it affects the interests of other persons, institutions and Canadian and foreign companies and would require the defendants to disclose confidential and secret information. v. Nikouline takes the position that “information regarding patent issues confirmed and protected by United States Patent and Trademark Offices. Any question or disagreements Mr. Taylor can directly address to USPTO.” vi. Same answer as iv) above. vii. Same answer as iv) above. viii. Same answer as iv) above. ix. Same answer as iv) above. x. The defendants have disclosed a document entitled “Nobility Assembly Diploma of Countess Anjelika Gretskaia”.
[28] The plaintiff argues that the list fails to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, and, in particular, does not conform to the format of an affidavit of documents required by Rule 30.03(1) and Forms 30A and 30B.
[29] More importantly, the plaintiff argues that the defendants have failed to comply with the June 6, 2019 Order. For example, the defendants have not provided the financial disclosure ordered. Rather than disclosing certain documents ordered to be disclosed, the defendants reiterate their position that the documents are not relevant.
[30] The relevance of the documents was an issue to be addressed before Master Sugunasiri when the March 7, 2019 disclosure motion was heard. Regrettably, the defendants did not appear to make their case that the disclosure requested was too broad or not relevant. Nor did they seek leave to appeal the March 7, 2019 Order or move to have it set aside under Rule 37.14.
[31] When the defendants appeared before Master Muir, he noted that the defendants “made submissions about the merits of their defence and Mr. Taylor’s alleged misconduct”.
[32] When the motion was argued before me, only Anjelika Gretskaia was present (Anatoli Nikouline appeared in the morning, but was not present in the afternoon when the defendants made their submissions). Anjelika Gretskaia spoke Russian and had the aid of an English interpreter. She took the position that the March 7, 2019 Disclosure Order was made in her absence, although it was not clear whether she claimed that she did not have notice of the motion. As indicated, the defendants never moved to set the Order aside for lack of notice. As she did before Master Muir, her submissions focused on the merits of the case, and she argued that she should not have to make disclosure because the plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
[33] In the absence of a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment, the merit of the plaintiff’s claim is not relevant to the defendants’ obligation to provide an affidavit of documents.
[34] Master Muir’s Order required the defendants to either disclose the listed documents or “explain why they are unable to do so”. While some of the refusals are accompanied by an explanation of why the defendants are “unable” to disclose the documents, most of the refusals indicate why the defendants are unwilling to disclose the documents. Unwilling is not the same as unable.
Legal Principles
[35] Rule 60.12(b) authorizes the court to dismiss an action or strike out a defence as a sanction for default of an interlocutory court order.
[36] In Starland Contracting Inc. v. 1581518 Ontario Ltd., 2009 ONSC 30449, the Divisional Court summarized the legal principles applicable to the striking of a Statement of Defence for failure to comply with a court order. The court stated, at para. 34:
Where an order is made by a court on a “last chance” basis, the defaulting party is given fair warning as to the possible consequences of a failure to comply with its terms. Unless the court has the authority to follow through with the threatened sanction, its ability to control its process will be undermined. That said, the fact that an order has been described as a “last chance” order is not determinative where a party seeks to strike the other party’s pleadings. In each case the discretion of the master or judge must be exercised having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time the matter is brought back to court, including whether and to what extent the party remains in default of the order in question.
[37] Discerning the appropriate remedy is somewhat complicated in the present case. On the one hand, the defendants have not complied strictly with the disclosure of all of the documents listed in the March 7, 2019 Order. On the other hand, Master Sugunasiri’s endorsement did not actually consider the scope of documentary disclosure or the question of proportionality in discovery as required by Rule 29.2.03. His endorsement simply stated: “I am satisfied that there are gaps in the Defendants’ existing affidavit of documents”. This is not to fault Master Sugunasiri. The defendants did not appear on the motion to explain why the plaintiff’s list of documents might be irrelevant or disproportionate.
[38] The deadline in the March 7, 2019 Order was extended by the June 6, 2019 Order, which also gave the defendants an opportunity to explain why they are unable to produce all of the documents listed. The defendants have produced a further “List of Documents” and, as required, they have also provided some explanation for why they cannot produce all of the documents listed in the March 7, 2019 Order. They have also interpreted the word “unable” to include “unwilling”.
[39] The defendants’ explanation may be inadequate in some regards, but they have not simply ignored the June 6, 2019 Order, and they have made some efforts to comply with its requirements.
[40] Moreover, in deciding whether to strike the defendants’ Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, Rule 29.2.03 requires the Court to consider whether the full scope of discovery ordered on March 7, 2019 is relevant and proportional. The plaintiff’s affidavit in support of this motion indicates that a Discovery Plan was completed on January 9, 2014, but the Discovery Plan has not been included with the affidavit material in this motion. The Discovery Plan is supposed to include “the intended scope of documentary discovery under Rule 30.02, taking into account relevance, costs and the importance and complexity of the issues in the particular action” (Rule 29.1.03(3)(a)). While Master Sugunasiri indicated that there were “gaps” in the defendants’ Affidavit of Documents, I am not able to assess whether those gaps continue in any significant or meaningful way without reference to the Discovery Plan.
[41] The appropriate remedy is further complicated by the fact that the plaintiff does not want the court to simply strike out the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim. If the court struck out the Statement of Defence, the plaintiff could note the defendants in default and move for default judgment under Rule 19. The plaintiff takes the position that this remedy would be inadequate in this case because he requires the defendants’ financial records to prove unliquidated damages under Rule 19.05(2). Accordingly, the plaintiff is asking the Court to strike out the Statement of Defence and to find the defendants Nikouline, Maxxwell and Gretskaia in contempt of court. He argues that the threat of fine or imprisonment if they do not purge their contempt will encourage these defendants to disclose the documents he requires to prove damages.
[42] Again, it would not be appropriate to find the defendants in contempt without reference to the Discovery Plan and an assessment of whether the gaps referred to in the March 7, 2019 endorsement have been filled. Nor would I threaten to put a party in prison because their Affidavit of Documents does not strictly comply with Form 30A or 30B of the Rules.
[43] The plaintiff alleges that relevant documents have been omitted from the defendants’ July 11, 2019 “List of Documents”. Without the Discovery Plan, I am not in a position to determine whether that is correct, or whether the defendants’ explanation for being unable to provide some of these additional documents is correct. A couple of examples will illustrate this difficulty.
[44] The defendants deny owning the 9 related companies listed in the March 7, 2019 Order. I do not know whether this is accurate, but currently have no evidence to the contrary.
[45] The plaintiff also alleges that he requires all of the financial records of the individual defendants. The defendants have disclosed their Income Tax Returns for the relevant period, and the financial records of Maxxwell Production Inc. It is unclear to me whether the plaintiff’s request for all financial records is a fishing expedition, whether it is proportionate, whether the records that have already been disclosed are adequate for the plaintiff’s purposes, or whether these records suggest that other records may be relevant or necessary to complete the picture.
[46] In my view, the appropriate remedy in this case is not to strike the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (the latter of which the defendants sought to discontinue on March 10, 2017). Rather, this is an appropriate case in which to employ the remedies listed in Rule 30.06(a), which provides:
30.06 Where the court is satisfied by any evidence that a relevant document in a party’s possession, control or power may have been omitted from the party’s affidavit of documents, or that a claim of privilege may have been improperly made, the court may,
(a) order cross-examination on the affidavit of documents;
[47] This action should continue to move forward. The defendants have indicated an intention to defend the action. The best way to move this matter forward is for the plaintiff to cross-examine the defendants on their various affidavits of documents filed in this case. If, after the cross-examination, the plaintiff can persuade the court that other specific documents have been omitted, a new, more focused motion for further disclosure can be made.
[48] In addition, the defendants shall, within 20 days following the release of this decision, resubmit their July 11, 2019 “List of Documents” so that it complies with the format set out in Forms 30A and 30B of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Hydroslotter Application
[49] On April 16, 2019, Lewis Taylor commenced an “urgent” Application against the defendants. He alleges that the defendants registered a website named Hydroslotter.ca and began publishing libellous accusations in respect of the applicants Taylor, Hydroslotter and its subsidiary Falconridge. The website alleges that the applicants have been involved in scams and fraud.
[50] The Notice of Application seeks a variety of relief, including: i) a “declaration” that the respondents “have committed the tort of defamation which was motivated by express malice”; ii) an “interlocutory mandatory order” requiring the respondents to remove a specified list of websites; iii) an “interlocutory prohibitive order” enjoining the respondents from continuing to disseminate confidential information and defamatory materials; iv) an order that any interlocutory orders made in the application continue until the final resolution of the Hydroslotter Action; v) compensatory damages of $5,400,000; and vi) punitive damages in the amount of $540,000.
[51] The Notice of Application was made returnable on April 18, 2019, but was adjourned to April 25, 2019 to be served on proper notice to the respondents. The Notice of Application was served on the respondents on April 20, 2019. The respondents did not appear on April 25, 2019, and the matter was adjourned again because the court did not have time to hear it. It was adjourned to May 2, 2019. On May 2, 2019, de Sa J. adjourned the matter to July 11, 2019, and urged the applicants to retain counsel “to advance the issues raised in the application”.
[52] On July 11, 2019, the application was brought before McCarthy J. The respondents agreed to a consent order that they remove the Hydroslotter.ca website from the internet (the July 11, 2019 Order), and the application was adjourned sine die returnable on ten days’ notice.
[53] The immediate difficulty with the Hydroslotter Application is that it purports to seek a “declaration” that the respondents have committed the tort of defamation and seeks more than $6 million damages. A tort action for damages cannot be commenced by Notice of Application – it must be commenced by Statement of Claim.
[54] Pursuant to Rule 14.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: “Every proceeding in the court shall be by action, except where a statute or these rules provide otherwise”. Rule 14.03(1) provides: “The originating process for the commencement of an action is a statement of claim…” except for claims such as counterclaims and third party claims.
[55] Applications are permitted by Rule 14.05. A proceeding may be commenced by an application in the Superior Court if a statute authorizes, or it is permitted under Rule 14.05(3), which lists the specific forms of relief that may be claimed in an application. Nothing in Rule 14.05(3) authorizes the commencement of a defamation action by way of application. The relief claimed in the Hydroslotter Application does not fit into any of the categories listed in Rule 14.05(3). In particular, this is not a proceeding in which “it is unlikely that there will be any material facts in dispute” (Rule 14.05(3)(h)). We know that there are facts in dispute because the respondents to the Hydroslotter Application have filed a Statement of Defence in the Hydroslotter Action disputing many of the facts alleged by Hydroslotter that are common to both proceedings.
[56] Moreover, a Rule 14.05(3) application is not available for a claim for general or punitive damages: Hefford v. Charpentier, 2009 ONSC 21761, at paras. 24 – 26.
[57] Nor is this a case where some, but not all, of the relief claimed fits within Rule 14.05(3). In such cases the court may have jurisdiction to decide those aspects that fall within the rule and defer the balance to a later hearing: Rule 38.10. In this case, the underlying claim in the application is a tort claim (defamation) that must proceed by way of action.
[58] This distinction is not a mere technicality, but is of fundamental importance to a fair hearing. Actions are characterized by pleadings (the statement of claim and statement of defence) that enable the court – and the parties - to understand the material facts and legal issues in dispute. When an application is commenced, there is no exchange of pleadings, no affidavit of documents, no discovery. While this summary process is appropriate when the relief claimed is limited to the items listed in Rule 14.05(3), it is not appropriate for most tort claims and never appropriate when claims for general or punitive damages are made.
[59] If, as events unfold, a more summary procedure appears appropriate, claims commenced by way of action, including defamation claims, can be dealt with by any number of summary procedures available under Rules 19 – 22 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; see, for example, Skafco Limited v. Abdalla, 2020 ONSC 136 and Senator Tobias Enverga Jr. v. Balita Newspaper et al., 2016 ONSC 4512. But such claims cannot be commenced by way of application “except where a statute or these rules provide otherwise”.
[60] A second difficulty with the Hydroslotter Application is that it purports to seek a “declaration” that the respondents “have committed the tort of defamation”. A declaratory judgment is a judicial statement confirming or denying a legal right of the applicant under statute, administrative order, contract, collective agreement, trust, will, deed or other instrument: see the thorough discussion of declarations by Granger J. in Nickerson v. Nickerson (Gen. Div.), 1991 ONSC 7127. See also: Yasin v. Ontario, 2018 ONCA 417, at para. 8. In the present application, there is no right upon which a declaratory order or judgment could be founded. While a court may – following a trial [1] or summary procedure if a trial is not necessary – make a finding that a defendant has committed the tort of defamation, that is not the kind of finding for which declaratory relief is available.
[61] It is not clear what the applicants in the Hydroslotter Application thought would happen when this application was heard. They did not bring a motion seeking interlocutory relief, but appeared to proceed on the basis that the entire application would be heard and decided. Given the July 11, 2019 Order to remove the Hydroslotter.ca website from the internet, it was not clear to me what other relief was being sought in the proceeding before me. Certainly I was not going to decide a defamation claim for $6 million damages by way of application. Nor would it be appropriate to decide any matters raised in the Hydroslotter Action (such as whether the defendants had disclosed or were disclosing confidential information) on this application.
In my view, fairness requires that this matter proceed as an action and not an application. As such, and pursuant to Rule 38.10, I make the following Order:
The Hydroslotter Application (Court file # CV-19-140073-00) shall be treated as an action. The applicants shall convert the Notice of Application into a Statement of Claim by serving and filing a Statement of Claim within 30 days of the release of this decision. The matter will continue as an action, with the parties complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules governing the exchange of pleadings and discovery.
[62] It is clear that Court file # CV-19-140073-00 and Court file # CV-13-115222-00 have questions of law and fact in common. Given the common questions of law and fact, it would make sense for the two proceedings to have common discoveries. It may be appropriate to have the actions consolidated pursuant to Rule 6.01, but I did not hear submissions from either party on that question.
[63] In the absence of submissions, I make no decision with respect to consolidation, but note that it is a question that should be determined sooner rather than later. Either party may move to have the actions consolidated or heard together.
[64] Neither party was represented by counsel on this motion. The plaintiff/applicants were largely unsuccessful. In my view each party should bear their own costs.
Summary of Conclusions
[65] This Court Orders:
a. The plaintiff’s motion for an order striking out the defendants’ Statement of Claim and Counterclaim is dismissed. b. The plaintiff’s motion for an order finding the defendants in contempt of court is dismissed. c. The defendants shall, within 20 days following the release of this decision, resubmit their July 11, 2019 “List of Documents” so that it complies with the format set out in Forms 30A and 30B of the Rules of Civil Procedure. d. The plaintiff may cross-examine the defendants on their Affidavits of Documents. e. The Hydroslotter Application (Court file # CV-19-140073-00) shall be treated as an action. The applicants shall convert the Notice of Application into a Statement of Claim by serving and filing a Statement of Claim within 30 days of the release of this decision. The matter will continue as an action, with the parties complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules governing the exchange of pleadings and discovery. f. Either party may move under Rule 6.01 to have the actions consolidated or heard together. g. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Justice R.E. Charney
Released: March 9, 2020
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Hydroslotter Corporation Plaintiff – and – Anatoli Nikouline, Maxxwell Production Inc., Anjelika Gretskaia and Nikolai Korvet Defendants AND BETWEEN: Hydroslotter Corporation, Falconridge Oil Ltd. and Lewis Taylor Applicants – and – Anatoli Nikouline, Anjelika Gretskaia, Nikolai Korvet and Maxxwell Production Inc. Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION Justice R.E. Charney
Released: March 9, 2020