Summary

Keywords

Civil procedure — Appeals — Judgments and orders — Interlocutory orders — Courts — Jurisdiction — Summary judgment granted in favour of respondents — Applicants ordered to pay funds to respondents for arbitral award, interest, punitive damages and costs — Appeal from payment order quashed for want of jurisdiction — Does presence of non-existent foreign company, without legal standing due to failure to register, undermine integrity of judicial process in Ontario? — Is it constitutionally permissible to grant litigation rights to foreign entity that lacks proper legal status and accountability? — Does allowing non-existent foreign company to litigate in Ontario create unfair advantage or compromise principles of equal access to justice for other litigants? — What impact does participation of non-existent foreign company have on enforceability of legal judgments and jurisdiction of Ontario courts? — Is there a public interest in ensuring that litigants engaging in legal proceedings in Ontario possess necessary legal standing and compliance with registration requirements? — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 6, 19.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In the context of ongoing litigation between the parties, summary judgment was granted in the respondents’ favour; the applicants were ordered to pay $881,170.84 USD to the respondents, together with pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $200,000, and costs on a full indemnity basis. The summary judgment decision was upheld on appeal. After the applicants failed to pay the funds as ordered, the respondents brought a motion for payment out of court of the funds paid into court for purposes of the litigation. A motion judge granted the motion for payment and ordered the release of the funds. The applicants attempted to appeal this order directly to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction; given that the payment order was interlocutory in nature, the only avenue of appeal open to the applicants was to the Divisional Court. The applicants now seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision quashing their appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Lower Court Rulings