Websports Technologies Inc. v. Cryptologic Inc., [2005] O.T.C. 347 (SC)

• Judge: Hoy, J.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: Friday April 29, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: [2005] O.T.C. 347 (SC)

Websports Tech. v. Cryptologic Inc., [2005] O.T.C. 347 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] O.T.C. TBEd. MY.072

Websports Technologies Inc. (plaintiff) v. Cryptologic Inc. (defendant)

(Court File No. 02-CV-240094CM1)

Indexed As: Websports Technologies Inc. v. Cryptologic Inc.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Hoy, J.

May 2, 2005.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Practice - Topic 8184

Costs - Security for costs - Order for payment - Stay of - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Words and Phrases

Order for payment of money - The Ontario Superior Court discussed the meaning of this phrase as found in rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.) - See paragraphs 5 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

Noble v. Noble et al. (2003), 175 O.A.C. 134; 66 O.R.(3d) 165 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Exel Global Logistics (Canada) Inc. v. Vicenzi Biscotti S.p.A. et al., [2003] O.A.C. Uned. 559; 2003 CarswellOnt 4871 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Society of Lloyd's v. Meinzer, 2000 CarswellOnt 1785 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 11].

Ogden Entertainment Services v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 440 et al. (1998), 110 O.A.C. 297; 38 O.R.(3d) 448 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Savarin Ltd. v. Fasken & Calvin, [1995] O.J. No. 2685 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 63.01 [para. 2]; rule 63.01(1) [para. 5]; rule 63.01(5) [para. 2].

Counsel:

David Powrie, for the plaintiff;

Craig Martin, for the defendant.

This case was heard on April 29, 2005, before Hoy, J., of the Ontario Superior Court. The following decision was endorsed on the record and released on May 2, 2005.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.