Stephen M. Turk

The plaintiffs, assignees of a bankrupt Ontario corporation, brought actions against two Iranian state-owned oil and drilling companies for breach of contract, conversion, and conspiracy arising from oil drilling operations in Iran.

The defendants appealed the dismissal of their motions to stay the actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part, staying the action against the oil company based on a forum selection clause in favour of Iran, and staying part of the action against the drilling company for lack of a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court allowed the claim based on a 1998 contract to proceed in Ontario due to a valid forum selection clause in favour of Ontario.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision that the appellant failed to demonstrate Ontario was the forum conveniens.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The defendant moved for leave to appeal a decision refusing to strike out an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs.

The defendant argued the affidavit was improper sur-reply and constituted case-splitting, relying on trial evidence rules.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The court affirmed that the strict evidentiary rules against case-splitting at trial do not apply to the filing of affidavits on motions under Rule 39.02.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its claims against a corporate tenant's director for breach of trust and inducing breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the commercial lease did not create a trust relationship.

Furthermore, the pleadings failed to establish the limited circumstances under which a corporate director or officer could be held personally liable for inducing a breach of contract by the corporation.

The plaintiff bank brought actions for judgment on mortgages and to declare a property transfer a fraudulent conveyance.

The defendant counterclaimed for abuse of process, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the bank was piling on claims to pressure her into settling the first mortgage claim despite her serious illness.

The bank's motion to strike the counterclaim was initially dismissed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court struck the claims for abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding the defendant failed to plead a collateral purpose or an act outside the action.

The court held that the bank's delay in bringing the motion did not prevent striking a pleading that was a nullity in law.

The claim for breach of fiduciary duty was allowed to stand.

The appellant bank brought actions to enforce mortgages and declare a transfer of property void as a fraudulent conveyance.

The respondent counterclaimed for abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering, alleging the bank was piling on claims to pressure her into a settlement.

The bank moved to strike the counterclaim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, striking out the claims for abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental suffering as they disclosed no reasonable cause of action, despite the bank's delay in bringing the motion.