Almut MacDonald

The Providius defendants brought a motion to stay the action against them for abuse of process, alleging that the plaintiffs (Evertz) failed to promptly disclose all non-financial terms of a Pierringer-type settlement agreement with the Lawo defendants.

The court found that while some initial terms were disclosed, critical "business terms" that fundamentally altered the litigation landscape, such as Lawo divesting shares in Providius, Evertz gaining an option to purchase those shares, and Evertz indemnifying Lawo against potential claims from Providius, were withheld for eight months.

The court ruled that these undisclosed terms significantly changed the adversarial relationship and potential claims, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the motion to stay the action against the Providius defendants was granted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs and a sealing order following its dismissal of the appellant's Charter challenge to a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs for both the appeal and the fresh evidence motions, citing divided success on the appeal and reasonable conduct regarding the fresh evidence motions.

Regarding the sealing order for fresh evidence, the court dismissed the appellant's request for a full sealing order, instead ordering limited redactions to the CRA final audit, consistent with a prior Superior Court order, to balance the open court principle with privacy and safety concerns, particularly given allegations of government wrongdoing.

The appellant, a Muslim charity, appealed the dismissal of its application challenging a Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) audit process, alleging violations of its Charter rights due to discriminatory targeting and Islamophobic attitudes.

The application judge dismissed the challenge as premature, citing an insufficient factual record and the availability of administrative appeal processes under the Income Tax Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, affirming the court's discretion to refuse to decide a case based on a preliminary and incomplete factual record, even for Charter relief.

While disagreeing with the lower court's suggestion that the Tax Court's jurisdiction would necessarily bar a subsequent Superior Court Charter challenge, the appellate court found the prematurity finding to be correct given the ongoing administrative process.