Adam Donald Hunt Chisholm

The defendant corporation brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action for wrongful dismissal arising from the termination of a management consulting agreement.

The defendant alleged that the plaintiff consultant committed a “criminal act of dishonesty” by installing hidden surveillance cameras to intercept private communications at a company property, relying on a prior finding that the conduct breached s. 184(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that determining whether the criminal act constituted dishonesty within the contractual clause, and whether the act was intended to result in personal gain at the company’s expense, required a contextual assessment of intent and surrounding corporate conflict.

Given conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff’s motives and the broader corporate struggle between board factions, the issues were unsuitable for determination on a summary judgment record.

A full trial was required to properly assess credibility and context.

In a proposed national class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM semiconductor devices, the representative plaintiffs sought approval of four additional settlement agreements with certain defendants and approval of class counsel fees.

The court assessed whether the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Although no finalized distribution protocol for settlement funds had yet been developed, the court concluded the settlements—totaling $23.325 million and including cooperation provisions—were reasonable given litigation risk and the benefit of cooperation against non‑settling defendants.

The court also scrutinized class counsel’s request for a 30% contingency fee of approximately $7.13 million.

Finding that percentage excessive at this stage of the proceedings, the court reduced the fee award to 20% of total settlements achieved to date and approved an interim fee of $4,180,345.59.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found the Ontario College of Teachers discriminated against him but awarded only $10,000 in general damages and no damages for loss of income.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application.

The Court found it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant lacked the required academic and language proficiency for certification, meaning he had no chance of being hired to teach in Ontario regardless of the discriminatory conduct.

The applicant sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash a warrant of seizure and sale issued by the Minister of Revenue.

The warrant was issued more than six years after the tax assessment became binding.

The Divisional Court held that under Rules 60.07(2) and 60.07.1(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Minister was required to obtain leave to issue the warrant.

As no leave was obtained, the warrant was quashed.