Ted Flett

The self-represented appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $3,000 to the respondents.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the self-represented plaintiff, seeking $151,971.35 based on the plaintiff's failure to pay prior costs awards and alleging the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The court found that the plaintiff's undisputed failure to pay prior costs totaling $123,401.10 was a valid ground under Rule 56.01(1)(c).

However, the court did not find the action frivolous or vexatious under Rule 56.01(1)(e).

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that an order for security would be unjust.

The court clarified that Rule 56 is intended to secure future costs, not to enforce payment of historic costs.

Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $10,000 in security within 60 days and an additional $5,000 at least 60 days before his summary judgment motion.

No costs were awarded for the motion itself due to the defendants' limited success and lack of a bill of costs.

The moving party, K. Matthew Hoang, sought leave to file a motion to reverse two prior Court of Appeal decisions, arguing misapprehension of evidence and lack of proper reasons.

This motion was brought after a history of extensive, unsuccessful litigation stemming from his 2011 employment termination, including multiple appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The court, applying the guidance from Huang v. Braga, denied leave, finding the proposed motion lacked merit, was a continuation of abusive conduct, and was not in the interests of justice, emphasizing the need for litigation finality.

The plaintiffs sued two former employees for breach of employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied duties of loyalty and good faith, and conversion after they left to work for a competitor.

The court found that the non-competition clauses in the employment agreements were ambiguous and overly broad, and therefore unenforceable.

The court also found that the employees were not fiduciaries.

While one employee breached his implied duty of loyalty and his obligation to safeguard confidential information by forwarding company documents to his personal email and doing work for a competitor while still employed, the plaintiffs failed to prove that these breaches caused any damages.

The action was dismissed against one employee, and the other was ordered to pay $1 in nominal damages.

The applicant, K. Matthew Hoang, brought a motion to the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking to set aside a prior decision of the same court and allow him to amend his pleadings, following the dismissal of his appeal in a long-standing litigation against Mann Engineering.

The court, on its own initiative, invoked Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the motion to be without merit and part of a pattern of abusive litigation conduct, as Mr. Hoang had repeatedly challenged prior decisions of the court through meritless motions.

The motion was dismissed as an abuse of process, and Mr. Hoang was prohibited from filing any further motions in respect of this appeal without leave of a judge of the court.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Following a summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action, the parties were unable to agree on the calculation of damages based on the court's methodology.

The plaintiff brought a motion to determine the amount of damages.

The court largely accepted the employer's calculation of unpaid commissions and average salary, finding it consistent with the employment contract and the court's previous reasons.

The court awarded the plaintiff total damages of $25,573.98, comprising unpaid commissions, unpaid bonuses, and notice period damages.

The moving party defendants sought disclosure of a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the settling defendants, arguing it altered the adversarial landscape.

The plaintiffs claimed settlement privilege but failed to adduce evidence that the agreement did not require cooperation.

After reviewing the sealed agreement, the court found it was a typical settlement that did not alter the adversarial landscape and dismissed the motion.

However, the court awarded costs of $1,000 to the unsuccessful moving party defendants because the plaintiffs' failure to provide evidence unreasonably complicated the motion.

This endorsement arises from a pre-trial conference where the defendants, Perrera and Yu, sought to bring a motion for disclosure of a settlement between the plaintiffs and co-defendants, arguing its relevance to the action against them.

The plaintiffs maintained the settlement was privileged.

The court scheduled the defendants' disclosure motion and addressed the possibility of a trial adjournment, stating the trial should proceed as scheduled but allowing for a renewed adjournment request if new information arises from the disclosure motion.

The issue of costs for the pre-trial conference was reserved to the trial judge.

This endorsement addresses a pre-trial conference where counsel for two defendants was unprepared due to not receiving the file from previous counsel.

The pre-trial, initially scheduled for September 25, 2020, and then rescheduled, was further adjourned to February 26, 2021.

The court directed the managing partner of the former firm, Baker McKenzie, to attend the rescheduled pre-trial if the file is not provided by February 24, 2021.

The endorsement also noted that trial adjournment terms and costs of the current pre-trial would be addressed at the next conference.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning an appeal brought by K. Matthew Hoang against Mann Engineering Ltd. et al.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs of the appeal to the respondents in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The appellant sued the respondents in negligence, alleging that the respondents improperly obtained an enforcement order during garnishment proceedings which caused the appellant's employer to terminate his employment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no duty of care was owed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that a judgment creditor seeking to realize on a judgment through garnishment proceedings does not owe a duty of care to the debtor to avoid causing harm to the debtor's ongoing employment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligence and abuse of process arising from the defendants' garnishment efforts to enforce costs orders from a previous wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking damages, alleging the garnishment caused his termination from his new employer.

The court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action, finding no duty of care is owed for bringing civil proceedings absent an abuse of process, and there was no evidence of malice or improper purpose by the defendants.

The court also found the plaintiff's action was not vexatious, and awarded costs to the defendants.