The Ontario Court of Appeal is once again making headlines with the case of Ramdath v George Brown College, which has turned out to be a doubly significant case at the intersection of class actions and consumer protection legislation.… Continue Reading
In the 14 months since the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its landmark decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71  the general organizing principle of good faith in contract law has been applied in a very restrained manner by courts across Canada. The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bank of Montreal v. Javed, 2016 ONCA 49 is a further example of this trend.… Continue Reading
In the recent decision of 1196303 Ontario Inc v Glen Grove Suites Inc, 2015 ONCA 580, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered to what extent parties not privy to an agreement should be held liable for the obligations it creates.
In that case, 1196303 Ontario Inc. (“119”) entered into a settlement agreement with 1297475 Ontario Inc. (“129”), a shell corporation which was owned by Mrs. Sylvia Hyde. Mrs. Hyde was also the sole owner of Glen Grove Suites Inc. (“Glen Grove”), which owned valuable rental property. Mr. Edwin Hyde, who exercised de facto… Continue Reading
On McCarthy Tétrault LLP’s Consumer & Retail Advisor blog, Helen Fotinos, Sam Khajeei and Adam Ship recently published a helpful discussion of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in 2240802 Ontario Inc. v Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., which will be of interest to readers of the Canadian Appeals Monitor.… Continue Reading
On March 26, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Westerhof v. Gee Estate concurrently with its companion case McCallum v. Baker. Both decisions were heard at the same time as Moore v. Getahun and, together, form what has been referred to as the Expert Evidence Trilogy (“Trilogy”).
There was an exceptional degree of interest by the Ontario bar in the Trilogy, with six parties intervening in the appeals: The Advocates’ Society; The Holland Group; the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association; the Canadian Defence Lawyers Association; the Canadian Institute of … Continue Reading
Does privilege shield a regulator’s investigation file that has not been produced to a respondent? The Ontario Court of Appeal recently grappled with whether or not to compel a regulator to produce its investigation file of its member to plaintiffs in a class action against that member. There are important lessons in the Court’s determination that case-by-case privilege did not apply in the circumstances. Nevertheless, the Court held that plaintiffs did not need the regulator’s documents to prove their allegations in the class action, and on that basis declined to order production.… Continue Reading
A little over one year ago, the Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Moore v. Getahun sent a chill through the litigation bar in Ontario. During a medical negligence trial, the trial judge criticized an expert witness for discussing a draft expert report with counsel and required disclosure of all his drafts and notes of his communications with counsel during the course of the trial. The Court of Appeal’s decision has been among the most eagerly anticipated appellate decisions of this year. The decision, released on January 29th, confirms and clarifies the law prior to the trial … Continue Reading
At the end of 2005, Ontario legislation came into effect which enabled aggrieved shareholders to bring a statutory action for secondary market misrepresentation against issuers and their directors and officers (and others) without the requirement to establish individual reliance. In order to commence such an action, however, a shareholder must first obtain leave from the Superior Court. Much of the jurisprudence in secondary market securities class actions has been devoted to examining the standard for leave.… Continue Reading
I can’t predict the future and I don’t have respect for people who try to.
-Jackie Mason (1931-)
As part of the Appeals Monitor’s annual attempt to give lawyers something to talk about over the holidays other than the two traditional Canadian touchstones (weather and hockey), we are proud to once again this year present our top ten anticipated appeals for the new year. Of course, we can’t control what the judges will actually do with these cases, but we think these are the ones worth watching.
In Kara v. Arnold, 2014 ONCA 871, the Ontario Court of Appeal seized an opportunity to revisit its recent jurisprudence regarding status hearings and to clarify the interrelation between its recent status hearing decisions (i.e., 1196158 Ontario Inc. and Faris) and the line of jurisprudential authority stemming from motions to set aside registrar’s dismissals for delay (i.e. Scaini ) which call for an overarching “contextual approach” to determine what outcome is just in the circumstances.… Continue Reading
Careful observers may have noticed that the Ontario Court of Appeal has allowed three civil appeals on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias in the last few months. This presents an opportunity to reflect on what conduct constitutes reasonable apprehension of bias and what it means for an appeal court to make such a finding.
The forum in which to litigate is a difficult decision in any case that crosses provincial or national borders. It is even more complicated in claims against the federal government. The Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction in some cases; in others, the Federal Court and the provincial Superior Court in which the claim “arises” have concurrent jurisdiction. Where the jurisdiction is concurrent and the plaintiff elects to sue in Superior rather than Federal Court, the question becomes: in which province does the claim “arise”?
The question is further complicated where there are multiple causes of action asserted. One claim may … Continue Reading
Last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, upholding the Divisional Court’s decision affirming the dismissal of a certification motion in a proposed “misclassification” overtime class action (previously blogged about in the spring and fall of 2013). The appeal decision is of particular interest as “misclassification” overtime class actions (i.e. class actions alleging that an employer has misclassified employees and managers to avoid overtime pay obligations) were thought, by many observers, to have already been dealt a fatal blow by the Court in its prior decision in McCracken v. … Continue Reading
The following post on the Canadian Class Actions Monitor blog may be of interest to readers of this blog: Ontario Court of Appeal Turns Against Cross-Border Securities Class Actions.
In the recent decision of Kaynes v. BP, PLC, 2014 ONCA 580, the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed a proposed secondary market securities class action on the basis of forum non conveniens. Writing for a unanimous Court of Appeal, Sharpe J.A. found that Ontario could assume jurisdiction over claims by Canadian residents who purchased their shares on foreign exchanges. Nevertheless, he held that Ontario should decline jurisdiction on … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in a case that will determine how to apply the statutory limitation period for investors in Ontario who decide to sue public issuers and their executives under the Securities Act. Given similar legislation in other provinces, the case will be significant for investors and public issuers across Canada.… Continue Reading
The business judgment of directors setting executive compensation was front and centre in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Unique Broadband Systems, Inc. (Re), 2014 ONCA 538 (UBS). Although the decision is based on unique underlying facts, it offers several important lessons on corporate governance.
In a recent decision, Baywood Homes Partnership v. Haditaghi, 2014 ONCA 450, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterates some of the risks of summary adjudication and reminds parties that, despite the enthusiasm for summary judgment endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, summary judgment may not be appropriate in all cases – specifically, those in which a staged fact-finding process raises the spectre of inconsistent findings at summary judgment and at trial.
… Continue Reading
In Prince v. ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., the Ontario Court of Appeal stayed a class action based on allegations that Air Canada had improperly collected transportation taxes levied under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). The Court’s decision highlights the difficulty in predicting the outcome of jurisdictional disputes involving e-commerce transactions. In addition, it illustrates the reluctance of our courts to permit class actions based on claims that engage the territorial sovereignty of other nations.
Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal reminded us of the importance of reasons for judgment in Barbieri v. Mastronardi. A unanimous Court allowed an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to a plaintiff who sued for breach of contract and negligence, holding that the lack of sufficient reasons in the motion judge’s endorsement left the Court with no choice:
… Continue Reading
24 Given the inadequacy of the endorsement of the motion judge, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of his decision.
25 In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to grant the appeal and set aside the declaration
How do corporate and personal liability intersect in a corporation that has only one officer, director and shareholder? In the recent Shoppers Drug Mart v. 6470360 Canada Inc. case, the Court of Appeal helped to clarify when the person behind the corporation will be found liable.
In October 2005, Shoppers Drug Mart (“Shoppers”) contracted with Energyshop Consulting Inc. (“Energyshop”) to manage and pay its utility bills on a nationwide basis. Michael Wayne Beamish (“Beamish”) negotiated the contract on behalf of Energyshop, which had not yet been incorporated. Beamish later incorporated 6470360 Canada Inc. … Continue Reading
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Green represents yet another plaintiff-friendly class action development from the Canadian courts, this time in the context of limitation periods. Less than two years after its watershed decision in Timminco, Ontario’s highest court reversed itself and in a decision authored by Feldman J.A. re-cast the limitation period regime governing secondary market civil liability under the Ontario Securities Act. In Green v. CIBC, 2014 ONCA 90, a five-member panel of the Court overturned Sharma v. Timminco, 2012 ONCA 107 and gave class action plaintiffs the protection of s. 28… Continue Reading
The following post on the Canadian M&A Perspectives blog may be of interest to readers of this blog: SHOTGUN! You should know this before triggering a buy-sell provision.
On November 29, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Western Larch Limited v. Di Poce Management Limited, 2013 ONCA 722 with important lessons examining shotgun buy-sell provisions, and in particular, the enforceability of a buy-sell offer that does not perfectly comply with the terms and conditions of the shotgun provision. Read more.… Continue Reading
The Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions today that will make summary judgment more widely available to parties. The reasons in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 and Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8 signal a cultural shift in which summary judgment will be available whenever it involves less time and expense than a trial, provided it enables the motion judge to reach a fair and just determination … Continue Reading
Rectification is an important equitable doctrine allowing courts to rewrite contracts that erroneously record the agreement reached by the parties. The basic requirements for rectification are well settled. Where there is a mutual mistake, the party seeking rectification must show (i) that the parties had a common continuing intention prior to the making of the document alleged to be deficient; (ii) that that intention remained unchanged or existed at the time when the document sought to be rectified was signed; and (iii) by mistake, the parties signed a document that did not accurately reflect their common intention.
However, … Continue Reading