In Ontario (Health Insurance Plan) v. K.S., the Court dismissed the General Manager of OHIP’s appeal from a Divisional Court decision confirming that a vaginoplasty without penectomy qualifies as an insured service. The Court held that the procedure was specifically listed in the Schedule of Benefits and thus was not excluded as experimental, rejecting the argument that a penectomy was required for coverage. It also found no error in the Divisional Court’s refusal to consider a new ground of appeal that had not been raised before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board.
In Shirodkar v. Coinbase Global, Inc., the Court dismissed an appeal from an order staying a proposed class action alleging securities law violations against several Coinbase entities. The Court upheld the motion judge’s findings that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the foreign Coinbase respondents and that, while Ontario had jurisdiction over Coinbase Canada, Ireland was the more appropriate forum for hearing all of the claims, including against Coinbase Canada, which had no material involvement in the appellant’s transactions.
In Integrated Team Solutions PCH Partnership v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., the Court found that the motion judge did not err in holding that Ontario had jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that a forum selection clause in favour of the Commercial Court in France was not properly proven as forming part of the contract at issue. The forum selection clause therefore could not be relied upon to stay the action.
In Bank of Montreal v. Utility Engineers Corporation, the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a summary judgment ordering payment under a personal guarantee. The Court found no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, that the Bank owed no special duty to explain the guarantee, and that the appellant’s non est factum defence lacked any air of reality. It also rejected claims of procedural unfairness relating to a proposed amended defence and the use of discovery transcripts.
In Lang-Newlands v. Newlands, the Court dealt with a motion concerning the automatic stay pending appeal under rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure following the filing of an appeal in a family law matter. The moving party sought to characterize certain post-separation adjustments as spousal support to avoid the stay or, alternatively, to lift the stay or stay other payment obligations. The Court declined to recharacterize the payments but exercised its discretion to lift the stay on the amounts owed by the respondent, citing a serious risk of non-payment and applying a flexible approach appropriate in family law proceedings. The Court also ordered an expedited hearing of the appeal.
In Nutrition Guidance Services Inc. v. Schwartz, the Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that a medical building was owned by two brothers and their wives as tenants in common and not in partnership. The Court did, however, reverse the motion judge’s decision to dispense with the need for the Appellants’ consent to the sale. The Appellants were 75% co-owners and there was no evidence that they would frustrate the sale or unreasonably withhold consent. The matter was referred to an associate judge to preside over a judicial sale, which would entitle both sides to make offers to purchase the property.