Wen Wu

This post-trial costs endorsement followed a trial in which the plaintiff recovered damages and the defendant's counterclaim and third party claim were dismissed.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date after its successful Rule 49 offer, and assessed the plaintiff's fees and disbursements as reasonable and proportionate.

The court reduced the third parties' claimed partial indemnity costs, relying on the usual partial indemnity range and proportionality relative to the plaintiff's work.

Total costs of $70,000 were awarded against the unsuccessful defendant.

This endorsement addresses two motions in a complex litigation involving allegations of misappropriation of confidential information and trademark infringement.

The first motion, brought by the plaintiffs, sought further document production from the defendants and leave to amend the claim.

The second motion, brought by certain defendants, sought forensic examination of specific electronic documents and production of network access records from the plaintiffs, and also proposed bifurcation of a key issue.

The court ordered reciprocal production of relevant confidential business documents under a protective order, denied bifurcation due to lack of consent, ordered the plaintiffs to undertake a forensic search for disputed electronic documents and produce network access records, and largely granted the motion to amend the claim, with the exception of a plea to pierce the corporate veil.

The applicant, Ms. Cheng, sought to lift a stay of proceedings in Ontario to pursue claims for child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, Mr. Liu, had previously obtained a divorce in China after initiating proceedings there, which led to the Ontario action being stayed on condition of his cooperation in China.

Mr. Liu breached this condition by providing false financial disclosure to the Chinese court, which subsequently granted the divorce but explicitly declined jurisdiction over economic issues, deferring them to Canada.

The court found that it retained jurisdiction over the corollary relief, distinguishing the precedent of Okmyansky v. Okmyansky.

The decision emphasized that jurisdiction is determined at the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Liu's breach of conditions and fraudulent disclosure, China's explicit declination of jurisdiction, and the doctrine of forum of necessity.