Posts Tagged ‘Plaintiff’

Ontario Court of Appeal: One-year statutory limitation period applies to business property loss claims

September 11, 2013

Here’s a wake-up call for those of you handling breach of insurance contract claims under commercial general liability (CGL) and other types of business insurance policies for clients. (more…)

Howard M. Erichson, “The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy”

May 3, 2013

Howard M. Erichson (Fordham University School of Law) has posted “The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy”, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2245889. Here’s the abstract:

This essay, written for the 2013 Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation symposium on lessons from the Chevron-Ecuador environmental litigation, urges that we not take the wrong lesson concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The paper highlights the irony of the forum battles in the litigation. The plaintiffs sued in the United States, the defendants won dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens (arguing that the dispute should be adjudicated by the courts of Ecuador), the plaintiffs obtained a massive judgment in Ecuador, and the defendants challenged the judgment on grounds of fraud and corruption in the Ecuadorian proceedings. Despite the temptation to see the Chevron-Ecuador litigation as a cautionary tale about forum non conveniens, this essay argues that the “adequate alternative forum” standard for forum non conveniens should remain exceedingly low. Ex ante, deference to foreign legal systems should prevail, even as we permit ex post challenges to recognition of judgments on grounds of fraud and corruption.

 Download a copy of the paper at SSRN here.

Trying to fake a judgment? What were the plaintiffs thinking?

February 1, 2013

[38] I have no hesitation in concluding that an award of full indemnity costs is required in the circumstances of this case. I find that the plaintiffs’ conduct, in faking a judgment of this court, constitutes a scurrilous and fraudulent attack on the administration of justice. The plaintiffs’ actions amount to a contemptuous and reckless disregard for the judicial process and were calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice in these proceedings. The plaintiffs’ behaviour was “reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous.” Such reckless attacks on the administration of justice clearly constitute conduct requiring chastisement and deterrence.

[39] I find that the defendants are entitled to full indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiffs D’Souza and D’Gama forthwith. Costs are awarded as follows:

Woldanskas $14,974.60

Linton/Jagielski $10,659.35

Gills $14, 617.97

inclusive of disbursements and HST.

[40] The plaintiffs are prohibited from taking any fresh step in these proceedings until these costs have been paid in full.

Master Dash Order

[41] There is a subsidiary issue involving an order of Master Dash on April 26, 2011, obtained without notice, granting leave to the plaintiffs to register a certificate of pending litigation against the Property (the CPL order). No CPL has been registered as yet.

[42] The plaintiffs have refused or been unable to produce the original of Master Dash’s order. The court record apparently contains no original order or endorsed motion record.

[43] It appears that the CPL order of Master Dash may also be a fake.

[44] In any event, it was obtained without notice. The noting in default of the Gills was improper and constituted sharp practice.

[45] In the circumstances, my order shall issue setting aside the CPL order of Master Dash dated April 26, 2011.

Read the decision of Penny J. in John Joseph AKA John D’Souza and Peter D’Gama v. Ritchie James Linton, et al. 2013 ONSC 70  here.

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Group: A Reply to Ted Folkman

January 21, 2013

My blawging colleague, Ted Folkman over at Letters Blogatory has an informative post about Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Group, Inc. (D. Md. 2013) a recent Maryland District Court decision dealing with service of process under the Hague Service Convention [“Syncrude”].

In Syncrude, the Plaintiff, Syncrude Canada Ltd. (“Syncrude”  or “Plaintiff”) brought an action pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Foreign  Money-Judgment Recognition Act, Maryland  Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §§ 10-701  et seq. (“the Recognition Act”) against  Defendants The Highland Consulting Group Inc. (“HCG”), High Energy Consultants, Inc. (“HEC”), and The Highland Group International GmbH (“HGI”) (collectively “the Highland Defendants”).

On July 26, 2011, Syncrude filed a breach of contract action against the Highland Defendants in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Case Number 1103 1134 (“Canadian Litigation”).  The Highland Defendants were served via registered mail at their respective principal offices pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court and the Alberta Business Corporation Act.   Bittner signed the return receipts acknowledging service for both Maryland Defendants on August 2, 2011. Raz Walter signed a return receipt on behalf of Highland Group International GmbH on August 3, 2011. (more…)

Ontario Court of Appeal decision on Setting Aside a Registrar’s Dismissal Order

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…)

%d bloggers like this: