Alexandra Logvin

This is an appeal from a Divisional Court decision that granted judicial review, quashing an administrative decision and a request for bids related to the procurement of identification cards.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) required card stock to be produced in Canada, which Thales DIS Canada Inc. (Thales) challenged as discriminatory under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

The Divisional Court found the MTO's decision and request for bids unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the reasonableness standard of review by conducting a de novo assessment instead of focusing on the administrative decision-maker's reasons.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable and that the request for bids was not separately subject to judicial review given the existence of an adequate internal dispute resolution process.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Florida resident, in a personal injury action arising from a trip and fall at the CN Tower.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the rigorous standard of financial disclosure required to prove impecuniosity, noting her unencumbered condominium and lack of medical evidence regarding her inability to work.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $17,000 in security for costs up to and including discoveries.

The plaintiff, a distributor, sued the defendant, a manufacturer of adult sex toys, for breach of three purported exclusive distribution agreements.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the parties were merely negotiating and had never reached a binding consensus ad idem on the essential terms.

The defendant counterclaimed for defamation and other torts based on a complaint the plaintiff's principal sent to Health Canada alleging safety defects in the defendant's products.

The court granted the counterclaim for defamation and injurious falsehood, finding the statements were false, defamatory, and made with the intent to harm the defendant's reputation and business.

The defendant was awarded $50,000 in general damages.

The court determined costs following civil proceedings between the parties.

On consent, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant $107,998.61 in legal fees inclusive of GST and HST.

The court also ordered payment of disbursements in accordance with the defendant’s Bill of Costs, subject to reductions required under Tariff A of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Hotel expenses were reduced to conform with Tariff A s. 21(3), and witnesses’ travel and parking expenses were ordered recalculated under Tariff A s. 21(2)(c), with all other disbursements approved.

Former shareholders of a technology company sought payment of earn‑out amounts under a Share Purchase Agreement following the purchaser’s acquisition of their company.

They argued that profits from a large engineering project should have been included in the calculation of EBIAT for purposes of triggering the earn‑out thresholds and that revenue had been improperly deferred.

The court held that the project did not meet the contractual requirements for inclusion because the earnings were not attributable exclusively to design services using the acquired company’s unique intellectual property and the project had not been awarded specifically due to that IP.

The court also preferred the defendant’s accounting evidence and found no improper revenue deferral affecting the threshold calculations.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to the earn‑out payment.

Multiple applicants charged with bid‑rigging under s. 47(2) of the Competition Act and conspiracy under s. 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry.

They argued that the government Requests for Proposals used to procure information technology services merely created standing offers or pre‑qualification lists and therefore could not constitute “calls for bids or tenders” within the meaning of the Competition Act.

The court reviewed the Contract A/Contract B tendering framework and relevant procurement jurisprudence, emphasizing that the existence of a bidding contract depends on the parties’ intention to create binding rights and obligations.

It held that there was some evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that the RFP process created contractual relations sufficient to constitute bids or tenders, even though the government retained discretion not to award work.

The application to quash the committal was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order compelling foreign affiants of the defendants to attend in Ottawa or London, England for cross‑examination on affidavits filed in support of a forum non conveniens motion.

The defendants opposed the request and proposed that the cross‑examinations occur by video conference from Iraq, noting that they had not attorned to the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

Applying Rule 34.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the governing “just and convenient” test for examinations of persons residing outside Ontario, the court held there is no presumption for or against video conferencing.

Considering proportionality, travel costs, logistical challenges, and modern availability of technology, the court determined that video conferencing was the most appropriate method.

The motion was dismissed and the cross‑examinations were ordered to proceed by video conference, with arrangements and initial costs divided between the parties.

The defendant manufacturer brought a motion seeking relief from an earlier consent arrangement requiring it to maintain an exclusive distribution agreement with the plaintiff distributor pending further court order.

The court interpreted the earlier arrangement as permitting the matter to be brought back before the court and considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory injunction to maintain the agreement until trial.

Applying the test from R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found that although there were triable issues regarding the duration and alleged breaches of the agreement, the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience did not favour injunctive relief.

The court emphasized that enforcing exclusive distribution agreements through injunctions can require ongoing judicial supervision of deteriorating commercial relationships.

The request for an interlocutory injunction was refused, though the agreement was temporarily maintained for 60 days to allow the distributor to transition its business.