Archive for the ‘Rules of Civil Procedure’ Category
February 26, 2013
Court of Appeal window (Photo credit: lancea)
The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Zhang v. Hua Hai Li Steel Pipe Co. Ltd., 2013 ONCA 103 (CanLII), has reaffirmed that jurisdiction simpliciter is established by presence-based jurisdiction and consent-based jurisdiction (delivery of a Statement of Defence and other merit-based steps constitute attornment):
[5] In our view, the appeal should be dismissed but for reasons different from those given by the motion judge.
[6] This is not a jurisdictional case. The respondents live and were served in Ontario and the Ontario courts accordingly have jurisdiction. It is also significant that before the respondents brought the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court, the appellants filed a statement of defence and took other steps in connection with the action. Even if the appellants had not been served within Ontario, they have attorned to the jurisdiction.
[7] The forum non conveniens issue is not relevant.
[8] We see no merit in this appeal and it is therefore dismissed.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Appeal, Canada, Court of Appeal, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Jurisdiction, Ontario
Posted in attornment, consent-based jurisdiction, International, international commercial litigation, international debt recovery, international dispute resolution, international law, jurisdiction, jurisdiction simpliciter, presence-based jurisdiction, Rules of Civil Procedure | Leave a Comment »
February 11, 2013
Sometimes I yell at myself. (Photo credit: ★ spunkinator)
When it is an “emotionally-charged case”, I guess:
[10] At the end of the day, the critical issue in this case was whether, on consideration of all the relevant factors disclosed by the evidence, the enforcement of the settlement would lead to clear injustice: see for example, Royal Bank v. Central Canadian Industrial Inc., 2003 CarswellOnt. 5214 (Ont. C.A.); Milios v. Zagas (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 218 (C.A.). The trial judge concluded that in the circumstances of this emotionally-charged case, arising from the unfortunate estrangement of two brothers following a dispute concerning their respective interests in the family farming business, the interests of justice demanded that the settlement not be enforced and that the respondent’s action continue. This was her call to make.
Srebot v. Srebot Farms Ltd., 2013 ONCA 84 (Ont. C.A.) per Cronk, LaForme and Hoy JJ.A.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted in Ontario Court of Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, settlement | Leave a Comment »
January 8, 2013
Costs Stack Up (Image via Forbes.com)
[113] Based on anecdotal evidence available to me as a class actions judge, it is my opinion that the large costs awards that have been awarded in recent years are having adverse consequences. One apparent adverse consequence of the potential for these large costs awards is that many parties to class actions through their lawyers show no restraint in their approach to prosecuting or defending the certification motion. The parties roll the dice that they will be the successful party, show no restraint in running up costs, but hope to recover an enormous award of costs. Another consequence of the potential for these large costs awards is that in order to avoid the sting of the enormous adverse costs awards, the unsuccessful parties make disingenuous or ironical arguments that their claim or defence raised a novel issue or was in the public interest. Another adverse consequence is that the court’s response to arguments about costs has been inconsistent, and the outcome of costs determinations is uncertain and unpredictable. Another very serious consequence is that the number of new class actions appears to be declining, and small but possibly meritorious class actions are disappearing as class counsel warily select the cases that they will prosecute. The risk of grotesque adverse costs awards is a serious disincentive to law firms being prepared to take on class actions and serve the public’s demand for access to justice.
McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2012 ONSC 6838 (Ont SCJ)- Costs Endorsement per Perell J.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Class action
Posted in civil justice reform, Civil Litigation, civil procedure, class action, class actions, costs, Rules of Civil Procedure | Leave a Comment »
January 8, 2013
The recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Habib v. Mucaj, 2012 ONCA 880 provides a helpful overview of the legal test for setting aside a Registrar’s dismissal order: (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Court of Appeal, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Law, Master, Ontario, Plaintiff, Prejudice
Posted in administrative dismissals, Civil Litigation, civil procedure, Dismissal, dismissal for delay, Rules of Civil Procedure | Leave a Comment »
December 4, 2012
Today’s decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Ferrara v. Lorenzetti, Wolfe Barristers and Solicitors, 2012 ONCA 851 deals with the discoverability principle and limitation of actions for solicitor’s negligence. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted in Burden of Proof, confirmation bias, courts, discoverability, Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment | Leave a Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
