Doria v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Canada Inc. et al.
In Antonio Doria v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Canada Inc. et al.,[1] the Ontario Court of Appeal entertained an appeal from a dismissal order regarding an action which attempted to relitigate in court issues that had already been determined in an arbitration.
Background
The Appellant had rented his home to a production company for use as a film set for a television show pursuant to a “location agreement”. The family room floor was scratched during filming. The production company accepted liability for the Appellant’s damages, but the parties could not agree on the quantum. The Appellant invoked the arbitration clause in the location agreement and sought damages in excess of $650,000. The arbitrator awarded damages of approximately $50,000, and the Appellant unsuccessfully attempted to have the arbitrator’s award set aside.
The production company paid the damages awarded in the arbitration to the Appellant, and the appellant subsequently sued the Respondents, who were parties that were involved in the filming, for more than $500,000. The Respondents moved successfully to have the Appellant’s action dismissed as an abuse of process.
The Appellant then appealed the dismissal order, and also sought leave to appeal the costs award against him.
The court’s decision
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. “Section 139 [of the Courts of Justice Act] does not confer an affirmative or even a “presumptive” right to sue jointly liable parties. The fact that actions are “not precluded” by prior judgments against a jointly liable party does not mean that such actions must always be permitted to proceed, regardless of circumstances. If a judge appropriately determines that the subsequent proceeding constitutes an abuse of process, that subsequent proceeding can be stayed or dismissed.”[3]
The motion judge explicitly recognized that there are cases where s. 139 “would properly allow duplicative litigation”.[4]
“The motion judge’s decision was based on the fact that, after enjoying a full opportunity to assert his claim for damages and after obtaining a final award that was paid in full, [the Appellant] had no need for the imposition of joint liability against others. Yet he sought to pursue litigation against others for essentially the same damages in the hope of achieving a different and more favourable award.”[5] There was no error in the motion judge’s finding that this conduct was abusive.[6]
Significant deference was owed to the motion judge’s decision on costs and there was no basis for interfering with the motion judge’s assessments. Costs of the appeal were awarded to the Respondents.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal confirmed that s. 139 of the Courts of Justice Act does not allow for the re-litigation of issues against third parties because the plaintiff is dissatisfied with a decision, and it is immaterial whether the underlying decision arose from arbitration or from a court.
The Appellant was prevented from re-litigating issues that had already been fully arbitrated.
This case is one of many coming out of the Ontario courts demonstrating the courts’ respect and deference for arbitration.
[1] 2023 ONCA 321; available online at https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2023/2023onca321/2023onca321.html.
[2] R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43; available online at https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-c43/latest/rso-1990-c-c43.html.
[3] Supra note 1 at para. 8.
[4] Ibid., para. 10.
[5] Ibid., para. 11.
[6] Ibid.