The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50261
Law TiMes • March 1, 2010 told what documents were ac- ceptable and that no request for further documents would be made. This was not case in which affidavit evidence was sole means of establishing brother's residency so concept of fetter- ing of discretion did not apply. Visa officer was not required to reconsider decision in absence of proof that additional docu- ments had been received. Malik v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Dec. 16, 2009, F.C., Mainville J., File No. IMM-1673-09) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 812 (24 pp.). ONTARIO CIVIL CASES Arbitration PROCEDURE Limited sealing order would not unduly infringe open courts principle Motion by respondent for seal- ing order covering extensive amount of documentation filed by applicant in its application record. Applicant, which was operator of satellites and re- spondent which manufactured satellites, entered into contract in 1998 by which respondent constructed satellite for appli- cant. Applicant alleged serious malfunctions in operation of satellite and arbitration was cur- rently proceeding in which ap- plicant claimed $331 million in damages. In main application, applicant had moved under Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ont.), to have court set aside inter- locutory order of arbitration tribunal in arbitration currently proceeding between parties. Interim sealing order had been made on consent in December 2009. Order issued extending interim sealing order and limit- ing its application to documen- tation currently field with court. Disclosure of much of informa- tion in issue would undermine respondent's interests in com- mercial confidentiality of its op- erations and would undermine public policy of encouraging arbitrations by defeating par- ties reasonable expectations of privacy in ongoing arbitration. Limited sealing order that pro- tected confidential information for public disclosure would not unduly infringe open courts principle and in any event, this information was not central to disposition of procedural issues under review in this application or of public's legitimate and im- portant interest in understand- ing these issues. Telesat Canada v. Boeing Sat- ellite Systems International, Inc. (Jan. 6, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Hackland R.S.J., File No. 09- 46022) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 628 (12 pp.). Bankruptcy And Insolvency PETITIONS Application for bankruptcy order allowed Application for bankruptcy order against D.. Application initiated by P. Ltd. on Decem- DISCOVERY Section 267.8(12) of Insurance Act (Ont.) did not require production of medical reports Motion by defendants for order that plaintiff provide defendant with defence medical reports prepared on behalf of defen- dants in relation to two mo- tor vehicle accidents involving same plaintiff. Defendant also sought order requiring plaintiff to provide defendant with de- tails of settlements with respect ber 15, 2006 stating that D. indebted to P. Ltd. in sum of over $22 million plus interest pursuant to court judgment. P. Ltd. and D. settled differences with payment by D. of $1.185 million. Application remained outstanding. Applicants pro- ceeded with application on basis of act of bankruptcy of ceasing to meet obligations as they become due. Application allowed. Applicants established that at time they were added as applicants, they were owed in excess of $1,000. Outstanding costs awards constituting debts in excess of $1,000 indepen- dent from accounting dispute with applicants. Also clear that P. Ltd. had judgment in excess of $22 million and there were other execution certificates filed at time application issued. D. did not provide evidence that these debts had been satisfied. Applicants also proved D. com- mitted act of bankruptcy with- in six months preceding filing of application in that D. had ceased to meet liabilities gener- ally as they became due. Dilollo (Re) (Jan. 11, 2010, Ont. S.C.J. (Comm. List), Morawetz J., File No. 31-OR- 207435-T) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 641 (10 pp.). Civil Procedure COSTS Motion for solicitor-and-client costs allowed Motion for solicitor-and-client costs of defendant's success- ful motion for summary judg- ment to dismiss claims brought by plaintiffs for entitlement to readjustment of sale price of property and right of set-off as against balance outstanding under Vendor Take Back Mort- gage to extent of price adjust- ment claimed. Motion allowed. Plaintiffs chose to commence legal proceedings against de- fendant knowing of existence of contractual provision in Vendor Take Back Mortgage providing for payment of "all costs, charges, legal fees (as be- tween solicitor-and-client) and expenses…other proceedings taken in connection with or to realize upon the security given in the Charge". Defendant had no choice but to defend pro- ceedings. Payment of actual costs incurred accorded with expectation of parties as provid- ed in mortgage documentation signed by parties and registered on title. MCAP Financial Corp. v. Fern- icola (Jan. 6, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Thorburn J., File No. CV-08- 361887) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 677 (6 pp.). CASELAW to actions arising out of those accidents. Reports ordered re- leased subject to undertaking by defence counsel not to seek to rely upon release of those re- ports to use them at trial as basis for seeking adjournment of trial which was scheduled to start in two weeks. Rule 30.1(8) of Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), allowed court to impose such terms and give such directions as were just. Section 267.8(12) of Insurance Act (Ont.), did not require production of medical reports. Moreover having re- gard to proportionality in very late timing of motion court was not prepared to direct re- lease of any settlement details with respect to earlier actions. Evidence produced by defen- dants did not establish that they would be unduly prejudiced by being denied specifics of settle- ments in other actions. McDonald v. Kwan (Jan. 4, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Master Short, File No. 02-CV 225582 CM3) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 684 (4 pp.). Tenant granted leave to examine locksmith Motion by defendant tenant for order granting leave to examine principal of G. Locksmiths in respect of lock change at subject premises on or about May 28, 2007 including such evidence relating to June 1, 2007 invoice and including any informa- tion relating to original invoice. Tenant alleged to have damaged rental property owned by plain- tiff landlord. Tenant alleged that landlord changed locks at premises before end of lease term on May 31, 2007 thereby prematurely terminating lease. Landlord alleged it took steps on June 1, 2007 to change locks but did not do so prior to that date. Landlord produced in- voice from G. Locksmiths for lock change of premises which invoice appeared to be dated June 1, 2007. Date of invoice inconsistent with other docu- mentary evidence produced by landlord in action. Motion al- lowed. Evidence surrounding changing of lock inconsistent, unclear and confusing. Infor- mation sought relevant to ma- terial issue in action. Georgian Properties Corp. v. Acklands-Grainger Inc. (Jan. 5, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Fragomeni J., File No. CV-08-0004-00) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 685 (11 pp.). Conflict Of Laws JURISDICTION Defendants had not dislodged plaintiffs' choice of forum Motion by defendant to action for damages arising from motor vehicle accident on basis of fo- rum non conveniens. Accident occurred in Alberta and most of liability witnesses resided in Alberta. Most of damages wit- nesses in Ontario. Defendants would contest liability because of evidence of intoxication. No forum had majority of parties. Relevant medical records lo- cated in both Alberta and On- tario. Location of key witnesses and evidence slightly favoured www.lawtimesnews.com Ontario. Motion dismissed. Defendants had not dislodged plaintiffs' choice of forum. No per se rule that requires that lo- cation of liability witnesses be given more weight. Alberta and Ontario both appropriate ven- ues. Order and fairness would on balance favour Ontario. Lengthy relocation to Alberta could interfere with plaintiff's continuing rehabilitation and could affect ongoing recovery. Plaintiffs would themselves have to pay additional medical care costs and increased expert witness fees if trial held in Al- berta unlike defendants whose costs would be covered by their insurers. Bunyan v. Enns (Jan. 8, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Belobaba J., File No. CV-08-00364232) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 719 (9 pp.). Corporations OPPRESSION Transfer of plaintiffs' share of equity in joint venture property was oppressive Action for oppression relief and accounting. W., owner of three pieces of property entered into joint venture for development of property with defendant V. who agreed to finance joint venture. W. aware that Minis- try of Transportation interested in property but did not know until long after fact that they actually purchased property from joint venture. V. extract- ed all equity in joint venture property including portion that belonged to plaintiffs and trans- ferred it to companies solely controlled by him. Judgment for plaintiffs. Unjust to allow V. to retain plaintiffs' share of equity in joint venture property. Conditions precedent for order- ing accounting met. Corporate defendant, by extracting all of equity in joint venture property and transferring it to companies controlled by V., acted in man- ner oppressive to plaintiffs. V.'s conduct in intentionally and permanently depriving plain- tiffs of their fair share of equity in joint venture property with- out their knowledge or consent was conduct that would justify piercing corporate veil if that were necessary. In order to rec- tify harm caused by transfer of plaintiffs' share of equity in joint venture property to V.'s companies, necessary to order that plaintiffs be paid amount, determined by accounting, to be owed to them by both cor- porate defendant and V. per- sonally. Hurontario Property Develop- ment Corp. v. Pinewood Busi- ness Interiors Inc. (Jan. 11, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Marrocco J., File No. CV-06-317839-0000) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 734 (19 pp.). Family Law CHILD WELFARE Child continued to be in need of protection Status review application for order that child, aged seven, be made Crown ward with ac- cess to parents at discretion of society. Child remained in care PAGE 17 of society since June 28, 2007 when apprehended from care of mother for second time. Both parents had history of mental health issues. Mother had six hospitalizations due to men- tal health issues between 1999 and 2006. Application granted. Real and significant risk of re- lapse and mother's lack of social supports who could assist her were greatest concerns. Child would be at significant risk of both emotional and physi- cal neglect if child placed with mother and mother had relapse. Child thriving in current place- ment where she was member of loving and stable foster family. Not in best interests of child to uproot her from that stabil- ity in light of significant risk of relapse. Serious concerns regarding mother's preoccupa- tion and animosity towards father. Mother had no insight into how behaviour impacts on child. Mother fully incapable of supporting child's relationship with father. Very real risk that mother's distorted view of father could be imposed on child and affect her in number of negative ways. Child continued to be in need of protection. Return to mother's care impossible given her mental health and very real risk of relapse. No alternative but to make order for Crown Wardship. Presumption against access rebutted. Cessation of ac- cess would be very difficult for child given her age. Evidence suggested growing relationship with father and strong attach- ment with mother. No plan for adoption. Long term placement in foster home not jeopardized by supervised access. Children's Aid Society of Ham- ilton v. G. (E.) (Jan. 7, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Walters J., File No. C-1435/06) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 755 (17 pp.). MARRIAGE Parties made mistake as to nature of ceremony Application by parties for an- nulment of marriage. Parties were Sikhs. Parties went through legal marriage ceremony and signed marriage register. Par- ties claimed that they believed document they signed was form of engagement in Sikh religion. Parties had never consummated marriage. Application granted. In absence of evidence contract- ing evidence of both parties, it was accepted that parties did not engage in planned fraud, but rather made mistake as to nature of ceremony. Sidhu v. Chahal (Jan. 4, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Wein J., File No. FS-08-2162-00) 183 A.C.W.S. (3d) 781 (7 pp.). SUPPORT Father had not made bona fide effort to become employed full time Trial of action for child support for child, aged three. Interim orders provided for monthly child support of $412 for period from February 2006 to Decem- ber 2007, of $409 from January 2007 to December 2007 based on father's income of $44,000, of $320 from January 2008 based on income of $35,431