3 total
The court compelled a transit commission to answer discovery questions regarding delay evidence, mitigation, and legal positions in a complex construction dispute.
This endorsement addresses several refusals arising from examinations for discovery between the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and two of the Designers, WSP Canada Inc. and IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc., in a complex construction litigation involving the Steeles West Subway Station project.
The court applied rules of discovery, relevance, and proportionality to compel answers or further productions regarding litigation privilege, evidence supporting delay allegations, reasons for not replacing a contractor, and clarification of legal positions on specifications.
Settlement approved imposing $700,000 penalty for inadvertent failure to deliver ETF summary disclosure documents.
The respondent entered into a settlement agreement with Staff of the Commission regarding its failure to provide timely delivery of summary disclosure documents to investors who purchased exchange traded fund securities.
The failure was inadvertent and caused by a software programming error, with no evidence of investor losses or financial benefit to the respondent.
The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest, and ordered a $700,000 administrative penalty, $35,000 in costs, and the implementation of enhanced control and supervision procedures.
The court ordered non-resident applicants to post security for costs, rejecting their impecuniosity claim and offer of foreign property as security.
The applicants, residents of Senegal, sought to enforce a Senegalese judgment in Ontario.
The respondent moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) due to the applicants' non-residency.
The court found the applicants failed to demonstrate impecuniosity with robust particularity, particularly regarding their ability to borrow against an owned house.
The court also found the merits of the application, specifically regarding notice to the respondent in the Senegal action, were not strong enough to defeat the motion for security for costs.
The applicants' offer of a security interest in a Senegalese house was deemed insufficient.
The motion for security for costs was granted, and the applicants were ordered to post $23,272.20 within 90 days.
