Young Park

The applicant sought to set aside an international arbitral award under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, alleging procedural unfairness, jurisdictional overreach, and public policy violations by the arbitrator.

The respondent cross-applied to recognize and enforce the award.

The court found that the arbitrator conducted a fair hearing, appropriately interpreted the commercial agreements, and crafted a reasonable remedy for the applicant's unauthorized sale of intellectual property.

The court dismissed the set-aside application and granted the application to recognize and enforce the award, ordering the applicant to pay the awarded damages and costs.

The respondents moved to convert an oppression application into an action and consolidate it with three wrongful dismissal actions brought by the applicants.

The respondents argued that the dispute involved complex factual and credibility issues that required oral discovery and a trial.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the respondents had not yet delivered responding evidence and had failed to clearly identify credibility issues that could not be resolved on a paper record.

The court held that the application judge would be in a better position to determine whether a trial is necessary after the evidentiary record is fully developed.

The plaintiff IT consulting firm moved for summary judgment against the defendant for over $6.5 million in unpaid invoices for software development projects.

The defendant argued there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms such as scope of work and compensation.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether a valid contract existed and whether the plaintiff complied with it.

Additionally, the court granted a motion by the UK-based defendants to dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction, finding no contract was made with them in Ontario and the location of the plaintiff's deprivation in an unjust enrichment claim was insufficient to ground jurisdiction.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the corporate responding party and $5,000 to the individual responding parties.

The appellants appealed an order made at a case conference holding them liable for tax penalties and interest resulting from their oppressive conduct.

They argued the application judge lacked authority to make a substantive order at a case conference and denied them procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that Rule 50.13(6) permits judges to issue directions, including substantive orders, at case conferences in appropriate circumstances to promote efficiency.

The court found no procedural unfairness, as the appellants were informed of the conference's purpose and had the opportunity to submit materials.

The appeal was allowed in part only to correct an agreed-upon calculation error.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a motion for injunctive relief brought by Mondee, Inc. and related plaintiffs against Voyzant Inc. and several individual defendants.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to Mondee, primarily the return and destruction of its information, but dismissed broader relief sought against the defendants.

The court found that the defendants were more successful on the substantive issues and awarded costs to Voyzant Inc. and the non-Binning departing employees, while denying costs to Jasvinder Binning due to his conduct.

The court declined to award Mondee its costs, holding that costs should generally be reserved to the trial judge where a trial is likely.

The decision concerns an interlocutory injunction sought by Mondee, Inc. and related companies against former employees and their new employer, Voyzant Inc., after a mass departure of staff and alleged misappropriation of confidential information.

The court grants an injunction requiring the return and destruction of Mondee’s confidential information taken by a departing employee, but declines to restrain the defendants from soliciting or dealing with certain customers, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm and that damages would be quantifiable.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the legal tests for interlocutory injunctions in the context of confidential business information and fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully resisting an anti-SLAPP motion brought by two defendants and partially succeeding on a motion to strike pleadings.

The court, interpreting section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, ruled that a responding party who successfully resists an anti-SLAPP motion is generally not entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances warrant it.

Despite the plaintiff incurring significant legal expenses and the judge's view that the motion was "on the wrong side of the boundary" of abusive use, the court found no basis to deviate from the statutory rule, compelling it to deny costs.

However, a separate settlement for $4,000 was reached with another defendant (CUHMA) for their appearance.

The defendants Kenneth LeDez and Ron Linden brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), or alternatively, to strike certain pleadings under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff, a hyperbaric medicine specialist, sued after LeDez accused her of unethical conduct and orchestrated her removal from a professional association, stemming from her "off-label" use of hyperbaric procedures.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the plaintiff's defamation claim had substantial merit and the defendants lacked a valid defense, and that the public interest in allowing the suit to continue outweighed protecting the defendants' expressions, which were found to exceed privileged occasions and potentially be malicious.

The alternative motion to strike pleadings was granted in part, striking claims for unlawful interference with economic relations, conspiracy, bad faith, and breach of fiduciary duty, but allowing the corporate oppression remedy claim to stand as it was based on specific corporate acts rather than expressions.

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful anti-SLAPP motions brought by the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau of Central Ontario Inc. (BBB) against A&H Asset Auctions Inc. The court considered the presumption of full indemnity costs under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act.

It found that the indicia of a SLAPP suit were not present, and therefore, an award of full indemnity costs was not appropriate.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to both the Crown Defendants and BBB, fixing the amounts at $150,416 and $87,122.55 respectively.

The plaintiff, an auction business, brought an action for defamation against the Crown Defendants and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) regarding statements made about the plaintiff's relationship with the federal government in selling seized gemstones.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that the statements related to matters of public interest.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show its claims had substantial merit against the Crown Defendants, failed to show the defendants had no valid defences (including qualified privilege and justification), and failed to establish that the harm it suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions.

The motions were granted and the action was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on a preliminary jurisdictional question raised by the court itself, rather than on the substantive issues.

The court had determined that neither the application judge nor the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to decide whether a proposed payment would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.

Given these unique circumstances, where the disposition was based on a threshold jurisdictional question posed by the panel and did not determine the underlying substantive issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs below and on appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a Superior Court declaration that a proposed payment by estate executors to a law firm, in satisfaction of a Dubai judgment, would violate s. 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code due to alleged connections between the judgment creditors and a terrorist group.

The appellate court held that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such a declaration, as it improperly interfered with prosecutorial discretion and provided no binding immunity from criminal prosecution.

The court emphasized that Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 60(1) of the Trustee Act are procedural and do not create jurisdiction for declarations on criminal legality, especially when based on disputed facts.

The applicants, executors of an estate, sought a declaration on whether paying a Dubai judgment against the deceased's former law firm would violate Canadian law.

The judgment creditor was associated with entities that had historically raised funds for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a listed terrorist entity.

The respondents, former law partners of the deceased, argued that the payment would not benefit a terrorist group and relied on expert evidence regarding anti-money laundering laws in Dubai and the BVI.

The court found that any payment towards the Dubai judgment would be contrary to section 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code, as there was a risk the funds could indirectly benefit a terrorist group.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant's production of 17,000 documents in a common Schedule "A" for two intertwined actions, arguing for separate listings.

The court dismissed the objection, finding the issues in both proceedings virtually the same and the production not extraordinarily burdensome, especially with the availability of e-discovery tools.

The court deemed the defendant's approach efficient, affordable, and proportionate.

This endorsement addresses an application by Qingdao Top Steel Industrial Co. Ltd. to enforce a Chinese judgment against Fasteners & Fittings Inc. The respondent opposed enforcement, raising defences of natural justice and public policy, arguing the foreign judgment was obtained unfairly and its enforcement would violate Canadian public policy, especially given related fraud allegations against Michael Wang (owner of the applicant) in a separate Canadian action.

The court found that the complex issues, including the potential for a new defence to foreign judgment enforcement and the need for full evidence and participation from all interested parties (including Michael Wang), could not be fairly determined in a summary process.

Consequently, the application was ordered to proceed to trial as an action, with directions for pleadings, discovery, and a common trial with the related action.

The motion concerned the terms of a judicially supervised sale of a limited partnership or its underlying real estate asset, following the respondent's failure to complete a purchase of the applicant's interest as previously ordered by the court.

Key contentious issues included whether the sale should be limited to arm's-length purchasers, the composition and disclosure of a "Floor Amount" (minimum sale price), the applicant's right to a credit bid, the consequences if the Floor Amount was not met, and the appropriate prejudgment interest rate.

The court ruled that both parties could participate in the bidding, the Floor Amount should not include the respondent's capital contributions but should include the applicant's post-default development costs, the Floor Amount should not be disclosed to bidders, and prejudgment interest should be 12% due to the respondent's conduct.

The court also granted a temporary sealing order for the file and reasons until the sale was completed.

The moving party defendants brought a motion for particulars of an oral supply agreement alleged by the plaintiff in its Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff argued that further particulars were not required and that the issue was res judicata based on a prior Rule 21 motion decision.

The court found that the prior Rule 21 decision did not preclude a motion for particulars.

The court held that the plaintiff's written responses combined with oral clarifications provided during the hearing sufficiently answered the defendants' demands.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide the oral particulars in writing within 20 days.

The applicant and respondent were partners in a joint venture to develop a condominium.

The applicant exercised a shotgun buy/sell provision, and the respondent elected to purchase the applicant's interest.

The respondent failed to close, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic downturn frustrated the contract and prevented it from obtaining financing.

The court rejected the frustration defence, finding that economic downturns and restrictive lending are inherent risks that do not radically alter the contractual obligations.

The court granted the application and ordered specific performance, noting that damages would be an inadequate remedy.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety.

The plaintiff alleged a fraudulent scheme involving breach of contract, conspiracy, and other torts by its former employee and various corporate and individual defendants in China and Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts to support personal liability against the individual defendants (except the former employee) separate from their roles as corporate directors or officers.

The court struck the entire statement of claim but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim in accordance with the court's directives.