Adam Howard Hirsh

The Family Responsibility Office sought a warrant of committal against Orrett Fagan for non-payment of child support arrears and ongoing support, pursuant to a default order.

Fagan cross-moved to set aside or vary the default order, citing health issues and reduced income.

The court considered the factors for setting aside a default order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, finding Fagan had an arguable defence but had not acted promptly and had a history of non-compliance.

The court suspended the committal order pending further proceedings, set new payment terms, and provided for future review and possible committal if Fagan failed to comply.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to reconsider a previous certification ruling that dismissed the action against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (MLF) in a class action alleging price-fixing.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify the action against MLF, presenting new evidence including a Second Information to Obtain (ITO), MLF's annual reports, Canada Bread's Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) from a criminal proceeding, and emails from Canada Bread's files.

MLF opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to exclude the new evidence and strike the Plaintiffs' amended claims.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the 'new evidence' was either not new, inadmissible hearsay, or did not substantively alter the lack of a viable cause of action against MLF.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation, stating that a certification dismissal for lack of cause of action is a final order and cannot be revisited without meeting a strict test for new evidence (Sagaz test), which was not met here.

The court also granted MLF's motion to exclude the evidence and strike the amended statements of claim against MLF.

The appellant, Canadian Home Publishers Inc., appealed a judgment that dissolved the limited partnership upon the death of its sole limited partner, David Colville-Reeves, and awarded his estate a 50 percent share in the residual assets of the partnership.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in importing the residual distribution provision from section 44 of the Partnerships Act into the Limited Partnerships Act.

The court held that a limited partner's rights are strictly defined under the Limited Partnerships Act and do not include participation in residual assets upon dissolution.

The limited partner is entitled only to their share of profits and return of their capital contribution.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The applicant, Canadian Home Publishers Inc. (general partner), and the respondents, estate trustees of David Colville-Reeves (sole limited partner), sought conflicting determinations regarding the entitlement to profits and residual assets of Canadian Home Publishers (CHP), a limited partnership.

The court determined that CHP was dissolved upon David's death because his executors did not become substituted limited partners without consent or prior authorization.

Consequently, CHP must be wound up, and its residual assets are to be distributed equally between the general partner (Lynda Reeves, owner of CHP Inc.) and David's Estate, as per the Partnerships Act.

The court dismissed the respondents' promissory estoppel argument, finding no formal representation or detrimental reliance, and doubted its applicability against mandatory statutory provisions.

The applicants, residents of Senegal, sought to enforce a Senegalese judgment in Ontario.

The respondent moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) due to the applicants' non-residency.

The court found the applicants failed to demonstrate impecuniosity with robust particularity, particularly regarding their ability to borrow against an owned house.

The court also found the merits of the application, specifically regarding notice to the respondent in the Senegal action, were not strong enough to defeat the motion for security for costs.

The applicants' offer of a security interest in a Senegalese house was deemed insufficient.

The motion for security for costs was granted, and the applicants were ordered to post $23,272.20 within 90 days.

One hundred and fifteen former Nortel employees brought a motion seeking to impose personal liability on the former directors of Nortel Networks Limited (NNL) and Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) for unpaid severance payments under section 119 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA).

The employees argued that the severance payments were akin to retention payments for services performed.

The directors raised defenses including that severance payments are not covered by section 119, they exercised due diligence, and some claimants were employed by a different subsidiary (NNTC).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that severance payments are not for 'services performed' under CBCA s. 119, but rather compensation for loss of employment.

The court also found that the directors had a valid due diligence defense and that the 'true employer' test would have identified NNL as the employer for all employees, despite payroll being handled by NNTC.

The court also noted that releases signed by some employees would have covered the claim.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision dismissing her claim against multiple respondents as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01(3), considered dismissing the appeal on the same grounds.

The appellant's claim was for an amount exceeding the Divisional Court's jurisdiction, and she had been advised of this lack of jurisdiction but continued to pursue the appeal in the wrong forum.

The court found the appeal to be an abuse of process and dismissed it without an order as to costs.

Following an appeal involving a dispute between a corporate appellant and the provincial Minister of Revenue, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The parties agreed on a fixed amount for legal fees and disbursements payable to the respondent.

The court endorsed the agreement and ordered that the respondent recover the agreed costs.

The decision reflects the court’s approval of negotiated costs following the disposition of the appeal.

The appellant corporation appealed Ontario corporate tax assessments arising from interest income earned through refinancing transactions within a corporate group.

The appellant argued the interest constituted income from property and therefore fell outside the scope of Ontario taxation under the pre‑2005 Corporations Tax Act regime applicable to non‑Canadian incorporated corporations.

The court held that the interest income formed part of a business carried on in Canada because the corporation’s core purpose was to facilitate financing transactions within the corporate group and administer the resulting debt instruments in Canada.

As a result, the interest income constituted income from a business carried on in Canada within the meaning of s. 115 of the Income Tax Act and was taxable in Ontario.

The court upheld the Minister’s assessments and found it unnecessary to conduct a full GAAR analysis.

In ongoing proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicants sought approval of an Employee Hardship Application Process and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The requested hardship process was unopposed and approved.

Certain noteholders sought conditions requiring enhanced reporting and procedural safeguards in relation to the claims process and employee claims.

The court held that the statutory test under s. 11(6) of the CCAA was satisfied because the circumstances warranted the extension and the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence.

The stay extension was granted, while proposed procedural changes to the claims process were found more appropriately addressed through a motion to vary existing orders.