Scott Hutchison

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's oppression application, arguing the dispute was subject to arbitration clauses in the parties' unanimous shareholders' agreement and partnership agreement.

The applicant argued the dispute arose solely under a separate control agreement that lacked an arbitration clause.

Applying the competence-competence principle, the court found an arguable case that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements and granted the stay, referring the matter to an arbitral tribunal to determine its jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment, arguing for the first time that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under s. 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The respondent alleged that Canadian officials in Ottawa and consular staff in Egypt and Sudan actively facilitated the illegal removal of his daughter from Egypt to Ontario.

The court held it had jurisdiction to hear the new issue on appeal and found a good arguable case that the claim arose in Ontario, primarily because the issuance of a temporary passport by officials in Ottawa was the essential act that enabled the removal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought to appeal an order dismissing her motion to add new causes of action and parties, which had been dismissed as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01.

After the Divisional Court dismissed her motion for leave to appeal, she applied to the Court of Appeal.

A single judge adjourned the matter to a full panel to determine whether the underlying order was final or interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal held that an order refusing leave to amend pleadings to plead a new cause of action, or to add a party, is a final order.

Consequently, leave to appeal was not required, and the appeal could proceed as of right to the Court of Appeal.

The defendants in two related class actions brought motions to compel the representative plaintiffs to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' individual medical and employment histories, reasons for detention, and other individual experiences.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, holding that discovery prior to a common issues trial is limited to the common issues.

The court found that the individual damages questions were not relevant to the common issues of systemic negligence or aggregate damages, which must be determined without reference to the circumstances of individual class members.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

The applicants sought to re-open the issue of the validity of a search warrant and rescind a Sending Order made under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

They relied on fresh evidence that a related search warrant in British Columbia, based on the same Request to Send from Belgium, had been set aside due to a misleading police affidavit.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Ontario police affidavit did not suffer from the same deficiencies as the British Columbia affidavit and that the Request to Send provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence had been committed under Belgian law.

In a class action regarding allegedly illegal bingo licensing fees, the defendants brought a motion to lift an interim protection order that prevented them from sharing the identities of class members who opted out with their municipal clients.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing that revealing the identities could harm the charities' fundraising efforts.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found insufficient evidence of a serious threat to the commercial interests of the potential class members.

Emphasizing the open court principle, the court granted the defendants' motion and lifted the protection order.

The applicant sought directions under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act regarding servers seized in Canada pursuant to a warrant issued to assist a United States criminal investigation.

The applicant proposed that a “clean team” of United States investigators conduct a forensic examination of the servers in Canada and prepare a report to the court identifying potentially relevant evidence before any sending order.

The respondent argued that privacy interests required an independent Canadian forensic examiner instead.

The court held that the clean team proposal, subject to safeguards including supervision by Canadian authorities and prohibition on disclosure to investigators without court authorization, adequately protected privacy interests and complied with the Act and Charter principles.

The court emphasized the importance of international comity and cooperation in mutual legal assistance matters and granted the requested order.