Civil Litigation: Jurisdiction
UD Trading Group Holding Pte. Limited v. TransAsia Private Capital Limited, 2022 ONCA 100 (40138)
The Applicants (together, “UDG”) were metal traders operating in Asia and the Middle East. The various corporate Applicants were incorporated in Singapore, Malaysia, Dubai, and the British Virgin Islands. The individual Applicant, Prateek Gupta, is a Dubai resident. Respondents TransAsia Private Capital Limited and TA Private Capital Security Agent Ltd. (together, “TAP”), operating out of Singapore, Hong Kong, and the British Virgin Islands, provide financing to metal traders. TAP provided financing to both UDG and the Respondent Rutmet Inc. (“Rutmet”) over the years. Rutmet, which purchases metal and metal products for sale to third-party buyers, was incorporated in Ontario. As part of a loan arrangement, Rutmet provided TAP with a power of attorney, which authorized TAP to take certain actions in relation to Rutmet’s unpaid receivables. Respondent Export Development Canada (EDC) is a Canadian Crown corporation providing Rutmet with trade credit insurance. Rutmet has supplied metal to certain UDG subsidiaries under trade contracts insured by EDC. Following difficulties in the international commodities market, TAP claimed UDG was in default on tens of millions of dollars in loans. TAP commenced proceedings in Singapore and Dubai, both on its own behalf and by using the power of attorney granted by Rutmet, to recover debts allegedly owed by UDG. Shortly afterwards, UDG commenced an action in Ontario seeking damages and declaratory relief. UDG then moved for an anti-suit injunction to enjoin TAP from pursuing its litigation in Dubai and Singapore, in favour of the Ontario proceedings. TAP brought a cross-motion for a permanent stay of the Ontario action on the basis the foreign jurisdictions in which litigation was already underway were more appropriate jurisdictions than Ontario. Ontario Superior Court of Justice: anti-suit injunction dismissed; cross-motion for a permanent stay of the action granted. C.A.: stay of the March 17, 2021 order of Gilmore J. pending appeal dismissed; motion for an order expediting the appeal dismissed. C.A.: appeal dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents TransAsia Private Capital Limited and TA Private Capital Security Agent Ltd., in accordance with the Tariff of fees and disbursements set out in Schedule B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Civil Litigation: Motions to Strike
Asghar v. Toronto (City), et al., 2022 ONCA 98 (40218)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for permission to file an application for leave to appeal solely in electronic format is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation: Security for Costs
Abi-Mansour v. Canada (Attorney General) (Deputy Head of Fisheries and Ocean, DFO) et al., 2021 Fed. C.A. (40021)
This seeks leave to appeal two decisions by a Fed. C.A. judge granting an order for the Applicant to post security for costs in two applications for J.R. from two staffing decisions by the Federal Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board: Abi-Mansour v. Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, 2021 FPSLREB 3; and Abi-Mansour v. Deputy Minister of Justice, 2021 FPSLREB 16. The Court ordered the Applicant to post $2,500 for each file within 30 days from the date of the Order, failing which the underlying application for J.R. could be dismissed without further notice. The Applicant did not post costs but offered to deliver two smaller amounts, and sought leave to appeal to the Fed. C.A. A panel of that court confirmed, inter alia, an appeal from a decision of a single judge on a motion for security for costs must be brought to the S.C.C. The Court also issued Orders dismissing the underlying applications for J.R. The Applicant seeks leave to appeal the July 20, 2021 and October 13, 2021 decisions, and also brings motions for an extension of time in which to serve and file his leave application, for an oral hearing, to join the file numbers, to semi-anonymize the style of cause, and to delay submission of the leave application pending the filing of another leave application. “The motion to join two Federal Court of Appeal files in a single application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an oral hearing is dismissed. The motion to semi-anonymize the style of cause is dismissed. The motion to hold the application for leave to appeal in abeyance is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Time Extensions to Appeal
Asghar v. R., 2021 ONCA 615 (40217)
The Applicant sought various forms of relief for the failure of various entities and government agencies to conduct an investigation into his allegations the Respondent was responsible for a vast community of organized crime which attacked and threatened him. He sought, inter alia, a public investigation into these matters and the arrest of the perpetrators. He claimed violation of his Charter and constitutional rights to live without “women organized crime.” The motion judge dismissed the Applicant’s application. The Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal that order was dismissed. The Applicant’s request for a panel review of that decision was dismissed. The Respondent’s motion under Rule 2.1 to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court was granted. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for permission to file an application for leave to appeal solely in electronic format is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Corporations: Derivative Actions
Link v. Link, et al., 2022 NSCA 14 (40150)
The Applicant brought an application seeking leave to bring an action in the name of Jack Link’s Canada Company (“Link Canada”), a Nova Scotia corporation. He wished to pursue a derivative action against Link Snacks, Inc., a Wisconsin company the Applicant had previously been a shareholder of, and against its individual directors and officers. The application judge applied the three-part test set out in the statute. He concluded the Applicant failed to establish two of the criteria required: he did not demonstrate he was acting in good faith, nor the proposed action appeared to be in the interests of Link Canada. The application judge therefore dismissed the application. The N.S. C.A. concluded the application judge did not err in the application of the principles in his determination that the Applicant failed to establish that he was acting in good faith, dismissing the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
J.B. v. R., 2022 QCCA 469 (40227)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Employment Law: Workplace Complaints
Doyle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 56 (40263)
This leave concerns a decision of the Fed. C.A. dismissing the Applicant’s appeal of a Federal Court Order referring his workplace violence complaint back to a new investigator and amending the proceeding’s style of cause to remove the National Energy Board. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Foreign Divorces
Antonyuk v. Antonyuk, 2022 ONCA 145 (40134)
The Applicant, Ms. Antonyuk, and the Respondent, Mr. Antonyuk, both citizens of Ukraine, were married in Kyiv. The couple moved to Canada, intending to immigrate. Mr. Antonyuk returned to Ukraine for work, and commenced divorce proceedings. A certificate of divorce was issued by a court in Kyiv in October 1998. Upon Mr. Antonyuk’s return to Canada in January 1999, he went to the couple’s apartment, gave Ms. Antonyuk a duplicate of the certificate, retrieved his belongings, and left. Ms. Antonyuk did not contest the Ukrainian divorce until 2016. By that time, Mr. Antonyuk had remarried. Ms. Antonyuk challenged the validity of the Ukrainian divorce, arguing someone could object to it, which would prevent her from remarrying. She then commenced an action, arguing the Ukrainian divorce was invalid and the Kyiv court did not have jurisdiction to grant a divorce. The trial judge held Ms. Antonyuk did not meet her onus of proving the certificate of divorce, issued in October 1998 in Kyiv, was improperly obtained and should not be recognized. The trial judge recognized the validity of the Ukrainian divorce, pursuant to s. 22 of the federal Divorce Act. The Ont. C.A. unanimously dismissed Ms. Antonyuk’s appeal, thus upholding the validity of the Ukrainian divorce. Later, it also dismissed a post-judgment motion filed by Ms. Antonyuk, who sought to set aside the Ont. C.A.’s first judgment and to recognize an earlier Canadian divorce order obtained under the Divorce Act (which had been granted in February 2019 but set aside in March 2019, upon proof of the Ukrainian divorce). “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Provision of Care Orders
S.B. v. Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux des Laurentides (CISSSLAU), 2022 QCCA 724 (40304)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on the party. Certain information is not available to the public, in the context of an order authorizing the provision of care. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Municipal Law: Orders to Comply
Ly v. Regina (City), 2021 SK CA (40282)
The Respondent City received complaints about the Applicant’s backyard which lead to the City issuing an Order to Comply requiring removal of specified items. The City eventually enforced the order itself and cleaned the backyard. The Applicant brought an action against the City for trespass and $55M in damages for throwing away his inventions while cleaning up his backyard. The trial judge dismissed the action against the City. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the application to extend time to appeal. “The miscellaneous motion is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Universities: Language Rights
Amrane v. Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, 2022 ONCA 52 (40128)
In a statement of claim against the Respondent Ministry, the Applicant, Mr. Amrane, alleged he and other students had been mistreated by York University, where he had studied. The claim also alleged York’s Glendon College had never offered the global geography course in French and had therefore violated s. 23 of the Charter. The Ministry moved to strike out the statement of claim and dismiss Mr. Amrane’s action. The judge found it was plain and obvious the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable claim. She explained the claims regarding the lack of a degree of supervision of universities by the Ontario government could not form the basis of a valid cause of action. With regard to the arguments concerning language rights, she held s. 23 of the Charter does not apply to post-secondary educational institutions. She therefore granted the motion and dismissed Mr. Amrane’s action. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”