Alan John Lenczner

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the assignment of certain I-beam installation work to a rival union.

The applicant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by failing to consider twenty drawings submitted with its reply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board had considered the drawings and its decision was not patently unreasonable.

The appellant lawyer sought compensation for fees and disbursements incurred while representing a former client on solicitor-client privilege issues after the appellant's law office was searched.

The application judge ordered the Crown to pay the appellant at the prevailing Legal Aid rate and referred disputes over hours to the Legal Aid Plan.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by fettering his discretion and treating the matter as a criminal legal aid case.

The Court allowed the appeal and fixed the appellant's compensation at $200 per hour for 140 hours, plus disbursements.

The appellants brought a class action for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The respondent company made an initial public offering with a prospectus containing a sales forecast.

Before the offering closed, internal analysis showed sales lagging due to unseasonably warm weather, but this was not disclosed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the company had no obligation to disclose the intra-quarterly results because they did not amount to a 'material change' under the Act.

The Court also held that the Business Judgment Rule does not apply to statutory disclosure obligations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Town of Oakville sought leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding heritage buildings.

The first decision rescinded an earlier order cross-appointing a Conservation Review Board member to the panel.

The court granted leave to appeal this decision, finding reason to doubt its correctness given the statutory provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The second decision directed the Town to permit the relocation of two heritage buildings.

The court denied leave to appeal this decision, finding the Board committed no error of law in its assessment of conservation principles.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing their personal guarantees of a corporate debt.

They argued that the respondent creditor failed to disclose a material fact: an alleged arrangement limiting the liability of a third co-guarantor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent intended to deceive or knew the appellants were signing under false premises.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to provide evidence that they relied on the co-guarantor's guarantee or that they would not have signed had they known of the alleged arrangement.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which had ruled that a law firm was not in a conflict of interest and could continue representing the respondents.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant local union before it was placed in trusteeship.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining the standard of review was correctness.

Applying the MacDonald Estate test, the Court found the law firm possessed relevant confidential information and there was a risk of prejudice to the former client.

The application was granted, the Board's decision was quashed, and the law firm was ordered to cease acting against its former client.

The appellants appealed a decision fixing the membership of three charitable corporations and ordering a meeting to elect new directors.

The Court of Appeal found that no proper procedure was taken to change the members in accordance with the Corporations Act, and the proper directors and members remained the original applicants for the letters patent.

The appeal was allowed, and the court ordered meetings of the original members to be held within 30 days.

The appellants sought costs of the appeal and trial on a partial indemnity basis following their success.

The respondent argued for no costs, asserting the class proceeding raised a novel point of law and involved a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the litigation was a commercial dispute between sophisticated actors involving established principles.

The court awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $100,000 plus GST to both the individual and corporate appellants, along with disbursements, and ordered trial costs to be assessed on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim that the steam rate under a 1994 Steam Sale Agreement should be based solely on nuclear-generated steam, rather than including oil-fired steam.

The trial judge interpreted the phrase 'full reasonable cost recovery principle' to allow the respondent to recover its actual costs, including those from an oil-fuelled back-up boiler.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the factual matrix or her application of contract interpretation principles.

The appellants' premises were searched pursuant to an Anton Piller order obtained by the respondents.

During the search, the respondents' solicitors seized electronic documents, some of which were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The respondents' solicitors subsequently accessed and reviewed these privileged documents without the appellants' consent.

The appellants brought a motion to remove the respondents' solicitors of record.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that where lawyers obtain access to relevant solicitor-client confidences during an Anton Piller search, they bear the onus of rebutting the presumption of a resulting risk of prejudice.

The respondents' solicitors failed to discharge this burden and were removed from the record.

The appellant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's process in establishing a development planning area under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994.

The Minister had instructed consultants that the preservation of an agricultural reserve, which included the appellant's lands, was a 'given'.

The appellant argued this breached the statutory requirements for an investigation and public participation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister has broad policy discretion to set parameters for the investigation and survey, and that public consultation outside those defined contours was not required.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for the tort of deceit and ordering them to pay damages equivalent to US $7,832,083.00.

The trial judge found that the appellants falsely represented that computer equipment purchased from the respondents was destined for educational ministries in China and Australia in order to obtain special discounted pricing, when in fact the equipment was diverted to the grey market.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants made false representations, that the respondents relied on them, and that the deceit caused the respondents' loss.

Following the plaintiff's successful appeal to certify an environmental claim as a class proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs awards for the certification motion, the Divisional Court appeal, and the Court of Appeal.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs for all stages, imputing success at the certification motion stage despite the plaintiff having substantially narrowed the claim on appeal.

Recognizing the public interest nature of the environmental class action under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 for the motion, $65,000 for the Divisional Court appeal, and $50,000 for the Court of Appeal.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against the respondent for environmental contamination caused by a nickel refinery in Port Colborne.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action.

The Court found that the appellant's narrowed claim for property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Securities Act.

The trial judge had held that the appellants had a continuing obligation to disclose poor intra-quarterly financial results before the closing of their initial public offering, and that their failure to do so rendered an implied representation of objective reasonableness in their financial forecast false.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act distinguishes between material facts and material changes, and imposes no continuing obligation to disclose material facts after a prospectus receipt is issued.

The Court further held that the trial judge erred in implying a representation of objective reasonableness and in failing to apply the business judgment rule to management's assessment of the forecast.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, alleging that nickel oxide emissions caused a decline in property values following a 2000 Ministry of the Environment announcement.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused certification, finding the class arbitrary and individual issues overwhelming.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and certified the action, holding that the narrowed claim focusing solely on property devaluation met all certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act, including identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiff.

The respondent owner built four rental buildings that were approved and inspected by the appellant municipality.

It was later discovered the buildings lacked required firewalls, leading to the tenants vacating and a mortgage shortfall.

The municipality admitted liability for negligence at trial.

On appeal, the municipality argued the owner was contributorily negligent for the defective plans submitted by its contractor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, finding no evidence the contractor breached the standard of care and upholding the trial judge's finding that the owner and contractor were not joint venturers.

The judgment amount and set-off were corrected on consent.

Amertek Inc. sued the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) after losing money on a subcontract to supply fire crash trucks to the U.S. Army.

The trial judge found CCC liable for deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, awarding disgorgement of a re-procurement penalty CCC avoided.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, finding palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions.

The Court held that CCC's statements about the contract's profitability were not false when made, Amertek did not rely on them, the relationship was purely commercial rather than fiduciary, and there was no breach of contract or unjust enrichment.

The appeal was allowed and Amertek's action was dismissed.

The landlord of a retail shopping mall redesigned the development without notifying the franchisor or the franchisee, who had relied on the original site plan attached to their leases.

The franchisee suffered business losses due to the redesign and construction.

The trial judge found the landlord liable for negligent misrepresentation and the franchisor liable for innocent misrepresentation and breach of the duty of good faith, awarding the franchisee $400,000 in damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability and damages findings, concluding that the site plan constituted a representation of the mall's layout.

However, the Court allowed the landlord's appeal regarding the franchisor's claim for contribution and indemnity, finding the franchisor was estopped by its contradictory litigation conduct.

The applicant developer sought judicial review of the Minister's ongoing planning process under the Ontario Planning Development Act, 1994, alleging improper limitations on the investigation stage and lack of meaningful public participation.

The Divisional Court quashed the application as premature, holding that judicial review should generally await the conclusion of administrative proceedings.

The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention before the planning process was complete.