Alexander D. Rose

The applicant brought a contempt motion arising from the respondent’s repeated failure to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure and attendance at an examination in aid of execution.

Although the respondent attended the examination, she produced incomplete and largely irrelevant financial records and admitted to previously undisclosed transactions and misrepresentations regarding the handling of funds obtained from the applicant.

The court found that the respondent had only partially purged her contempt and remained in breach of multiple prior court orders.

While incarceration was requested, the court exercised discretion to provide one final opportunity for compliance.

The respondent was ordered to produce comprehensive banking records for herself and related corporations, disclose financial dealings with third parties, and re-attend for further examination, failing which the applicant could return to seek further penalties including possible incarceration.

Appeal from an arbitral award under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 concerning a joint venture relating to mining concessions in Peru.

The arbitrator held that the appellants breached a contractual right of first offer and a trust relationship by granting a cesión minera (assignment of concession rights) to a third party without offering the opportunity to the respondents.

The court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that entering into the cesión minera triggered the right of first offer and constituted a breach of the contractual trust arrangement.

However, the court found the arbitrator erred in law by concluding that the parties’ relationship constituted a partnership giving rise to broader fiduciary duties and by crafting a remedy tied to the broader share purchase agreement rather than the cesión minera itself.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine appropriate terms for offering the cesión minera to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the reasons or the result reached by the lower court judge, who fully addressed the factual and legal issues.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking injunctions preventing a retailer from using or disposing of pharmacy and patient information from pharmacies operating in its stores, the court addressed costs.

The moving parties sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, no costs due to alleged improper conduct, public interest considerations, and the asserted novelty of privacy-related issues.

The court rejected those submissions and held that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Although the respondent claimed over $113,000, the court reduced the amount due to excessive staffing, high hourly rates, and unwarranted disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable jointly and severally by all unsuccessful parties.

Licensed pharmacists operating pharmacies within retail stores sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the retailer from selling or transferring pharmacy records to third‑party pharmacy operators following the closure of the stores.

The moving parties argued the records belonged to them under the license agreements and that privacy legislation governing personal health information prevented the transfer.

The court held that the agreements clearly provided that customer records belonged to the retailer, though it acknowledged a low‑threshold serious issue regarding the interaction of contractual terms with health‑information legislation.

The court found no irreparable harm because any business losses could be compensated in damages and patient privacy would not be breached under the statutory regime permitting transfer of records to a successor health information custodian.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the transfers to ensure continuity of patient care.

The motions for injunction were dismissed.

Nunavut Iron Ore Acquisition Inc. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order cease trading the shareholder rights plan of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.

Nunavut had made an unsolicited takeover bid for Baffinland, which was followed by a higher competing offer from ArcelorMittal supported by the Baffinland board.

The Commission found that the rights plan had served its purpose by facilitating an auction and generating a competing bid.

Maintaining the rights plan would only serve to eliminate the timing advantage of Nunavut's first-in-time offer and force an extension, potentially depriving shareholders of a revised offer.

The Commission concluded it was in the public interest to cease trade the rights plan immediately, allowing shareholders to decide between the competing offers.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff claimed $45,391.40 inclusive of GST and disbursements, while the defendants argued $25,000 was fair and reasonable.

The court noted that much of the work had already been prepared for the original injunction motion.

Applying Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $28,627.40, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The appellants, minority shareholders of Asbestos Corporation Limited, commenced an action in Ontario in 1987 for an oppression remedy and other relief following the takeover of the corporation by the Province of Quebec.

The appellants did not pursue the Ontario action until 2003, after exhausting five other proceedings in different forums.

The motion judge dismissed the action for delay and, in the alternative, stayed it on the basis of forum non conveniens and abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her conclusions that the delay was inexcusable, Quebec was the more appropriate forum, and the attempt to relitigate issues already decided elsewhere constituted an abuse of process.