Alan H. Mark

The appellants, renewable energy companies, appealed the dismissal of their application for a determination of their rights under Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Contracts with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

The IESO terminated the contracts after the appellants failed to achieve commercial operation of their solar facilities by the Milestone Date for Commercial Operation (MCOD).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the contracts made time of the essence and permitted termination for failure to meet the MCOD.

The Court also agreed that the IESO was not estopped from terminating the contracts, as there was no shared assumption or promise that the IESO would waive its termination rights.

Crystallex International Corporation brought a motion for a sealing order to keep confidential certain financial information and strategic details contained in the Monitor's 33rd Report, including cash balance, litigation expenses, sanctions impact, and confidential mediation disputes.

The Ad Hoc Committee of senior noteholders and the Trustee opposed the sealing of financial information, arguing for the importance of disclosure in CCAA proceedings.

The court applied the Sierra Club test, which requires demonstrating a real and substantial risk to an important commercial interest, no reasonable alternative to sealing, and the salutary effects outweighing the deleterious effects on the open-court principle.

The court found Crystallex's evidence, consisting of bald and speculative statements, insufficient to meet this high evidentiary burden, and therefore dismissed the motion for a sealing order.

The appellant was successful on appeal and sought costs for both the appeal and the underlying summary judgment motions.

The parties agreed to fix the appeal costs at $75,000.

For the motions, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $212,500.

The respondents argued this amount was excessive and not within their reasonable contemplation, suggesting a cap of $125,000.

The Court of Appeal found that while there was some overlap in the respondents' work, it was not considerable, and fixed the motion costs at $175,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant, a heavy electricity user, challenged the constitutionality of the Global Adjustment component of Ontario's electricity pricing formula, which funds the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program.

The appellant argued that the FIT program component was a colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge, designed to provide economic stimulus and subsidies to preferred communities (aboriginal peoples, co-operatives, and municipalities) rather than to regulate electricity generation.

The motion judge struck the applications, finding the Global Adjustment was a valid regulatory charge within a closed system.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the appellant's colourability challenge was sufficiently plausible that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion and should proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The applicants sought declaratory relief to prevent the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) from terminating their Feed-in Tariff (FIT) Contracts for failing to achieve commercial operation by the required milestone date.

The applicants argued that estoppel by convention applied based on a shared assumption that the IESO would grant an 18-month extension.

The court dismissed the application, finding no manifest representation by the IESO to establish a shared assumption, and noted that the entire agreement and waiver clauses in the contracts precluded reliance on past practices.

The applicants, solar power project developers, sought a declaration that the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) did not have the right to terminate their Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) contracts for failing to achieve commercial operation by the Milestone Date for Commercial Operation (MCOD).

The IESO had previously waived this right but issued a warning letter revoking past waivers following a government directive to wind down pre-construction energy contracts.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation and found that the FIT contracts, which included a 'time is of the essence' clause, unambiguously granted the IESO the right to terminate for failure to meet the MCOD.

The application was dismissed.

The court issued a costs endorsement following successful motions by the Attorney General of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to strike two constitutional challenge applications.

The applications, brought by National Steel Car Limited, challenged aspects of Ontario's Global Adjustment electricity regime.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Attorney General and Her Majesty in the amount of $50,000, and to the IESO in the amount of $75,000.

The decision considered the general principles of costs under Rule 57.01, the principle of indemnity, and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

It addressed the applicant's argument of being a public interest litigant and confirmed that a party fully participating in and supporting a successful motion, even without formally bringing it, can be awarded costs, subject to adjustment.

The applicants sought a declaration that the respondent's proposed mandatory conversion of outstanding convertible preferred shares would contravene its Articles of Continuance.

The central issue was the interpretation of the "Liquidity Condition" within the Mandatory Conversion Provision, specifically whether the average daily trading volume should be restricted to the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) alone or include all trading reported in the TSX Composite index (which aggregates trading from TSX and alternative trading platforms).

The court, applying principles of statutory and contractual interpretation, found that the Liquidity Condition should include all transactions reported in the TSX Composite, thereby dismissing the applicants' request for a declaration and their related oppression claim.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) sought a declaration that a Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Contract between the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and WPD White Pines Wind Incorporated (White Pines) was null and void, arguing White Pines failed to meet contractual capacity requirements.

APPEC also raised issues of legitimate expectations and negligent misrepresentation by IESO.

The court dismissed APPEC's application, finding that the doctrine of legitimate expectations did not apply as it creates procedural, not substantive, rights, and APPEC was not a party to the contract.

Furthermore, no special relationship existed to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation, and IESO and White Pines properly amended their contract in accordance with the FIT Rules and the Environmental Review Tribunal's decision.

The respondents brought a motion to strike out two applications challenging the constitutionality of the Global Adjustment under the Electricity Act, 1998.

The responding party argued that the Global Adjustment was an unconstitutional tax that violated s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court applied the Lawson and Westbank tests, concluding that the Global Adjustment is a regulatory charge tied to a complex regulatory scheme, not a tax.

The court found it plain and obvious that the applications could not succeed and granted the motion to strike.

The defendant, Renfrew Power Generation Inc. (RPG), brought a motion to decertify a class action alleging trespass due to shoreline erosion caused by a raised lake level.

The original certification was based on the understanding that a 107.5 Contour Line defined all class members' property boundaries.

New survey evidence, obtained after certification, revealed that many class members' boundaries were not defined by this contour line, but by metes and bounds or other methods, and that RPG acquired flooding rights through various means not uniformly affecting all properties.

The court found that the common issue, as certified, was no longer necessary or a substantial ingredient for each class member's claim, as individual property boundary determinations were required.

The motion to decertify was granted.

This supplemental endorsement in CCAA proceedings addressed the secured status of a claim (#11(b)) filed by United States Steel Corporation (USS) against U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC).

The claim arose from USS's payments under guarantees for USSC's third-party obligations.

The court found that USS's rights of indemnification were not "Secured Obligations" under the November Security Agreement, primarily because the agreement's intent was limited to contractual obligations related to direct advances or sale of goods, not third-party guarantees.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the grant of security for these indemnification rights constituted a fraudulent preference under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act due to a lack of fresh consideration.

Consequently, Claim #11(b) was deemed an unsecured claim.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

In CCAA proceedings involving the liquidation of a national retail chain, the court considered a motion by the court-appointed monitor seeking approval of its reports and activities.

Certain landlord creditors opposed the request, arguing that broad approval could prejudice creditor rights and improperly create issue estoppel or res judicata effects in future disputes.

The court held that while approval of monitor activities serves useful procedural and policy purposes in CCAA proceedings, caution is required where approval is sought in a general sense without full fact-finding.

The court approved the monitor’s reports but limited the effect of the approval so that only the monitor, in its personal capacity and regarding its own potential liability, could rely on the approval.

This approach balanced protection for the monitor with preservation of creditor rights.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

In the context of the global insolvency of Nortel Networks, the UK Pension Claimants (UKPC) asserted multiple claims against the Canadian debtors (NNC and NNL).

The UKPC claimed for a contingent Financial Support Direction (FSD) under UK pension law, amounts under a Funding Guarantee and a Swift Guarantee, and remedies for oppression and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the FSD claim as too remote and speculative to constitute a provable claim in the CCAA proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claims under the Swift Guarantee, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court allowed the UKPC's claim under the Funding Guarantee, finding NNL liable for £339.75 million.

The appellants advanced funds to Cash Store, a payday lending company operating under CCAA protection.

They appealed a motion judge's dismissal of their claim that they were the sole legal and beneficial owners of loan payments and accounts receivable from Cash Store's customers.

The motion judge found that the actual practices of the parties, including the payment of interest and commingling of funds, reflected a debtor-creditor relationship rather than the principal-broker relationship set out in their agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's factual determinations.

In a class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought directions for a modified trial procedure to determine the first certified common issue concerning the interpretation of licences of occupation and whether they established a fixed property boundary through a contour line.

The defendant argued the issue should proceed by way of a summary judgment motion supported by affidavits and expert reports.

The court considered the “full appreciation” test for summary judgment and the anticipated need for contested expert survey evidence.

Concluding that summary proceedings would not allow adequate assessment of the expert evidence, the court directed that the common issue proceed by a modified trial procedure with expert reports, an agreed statement of facts, limited discovery, and viva voce expert testimony.

Case management conferences were ordered to establish timelines and further procedural directions.

In a proposed securities class action arising from the takeover of a mining company through a joint bid on the Toronto Stock Exchange, multiple defendant groups moved to transfer the proceeding from London, Ontario to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the transfer, asserting that the dispute had multinational elements and that no venue factor strongly favoured Toronto.

The court held that the defendants failed to establish that a transfer was desirable in the interests of justice and dismissed the transfer motions.

The plaintiffs also moved to stay a related statutory valuation proceeding involving dissenting shareholders under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted a temporary stay, finding substantial overlap in factual and expert valuation issues and concluding that a stay would avoid duplication of proceedings and promote access to justice.

The applicant sought a declaration that a proposed class action brought by a tobacco growers’ marketing board against a tobacco manufacturer was not barred as a released claim under a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving governmental claims relating to tobacco smuggling and unpaid taxes.

The respondents argued that the class action fell within the broad release provisions and that the marketing board was effectively a Crown entity bound by the agreement.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation governing releases, including contextual interpretation and the rule that general release language is limited to matters within the parties’ contemplation at the time of execution.

It concluded that the settlement agreement addressed governmental tax‑related claims arising from smuggling and did not extend to private claims by growers for price differentials.

The class proceeding was therefore not a released claim by a releasing entity.