Alycia Gwynneth Jane Shaw

The plaintiff, Consolidated Fastfrate Inc., moved for summary judgment against the defendants (2516295 Ontario Ltd., Great Lakes Milling Company Ltd., and Great Lakes Milling Company Inc.) for outstanding principal and interest under a credit agreement.

The court found all three defendants liable, with Great Lakes Milling Company Ltd./2516295 Ontario Ltd. bound by the credit agreement's 26.82% annual interest rate, and Great Lakes Milling Company Inc. bound by the 18% annual interest rate stated on invoices.

The defendants' arguments regarding force majeure, frustration, and impossibility due to the COVID-19 pandemic were rejected.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, including interest on unpaid amounts and accrued interest, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The appellant, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union (International), appealed the dismissal of a motion to strike an action brought by four rank-and-file members of the International's Toronto-based affiliate, Local 113.

The members sought a declaration that certain provisions of the International's Constitution were void for unconscionability, arguing these provisions prevented disaffiliation.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to strike but granted a temporary stay pending exhaustion of the International's constitutional amendment process.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the dismissal of the motion to strike and the temporary stay, finding the action presented arguable issues of unconscionability and that the court had jurisdiction to determine the matter.

The applicant, Myriam Michail, sought leave from the Superior Court of Justice to bring an application for judicial review of an arbitration award and an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, along with a constitutional challenge.

Ordinarily, such applications are heard by the Divisional Court.

The applicant argued urgency due to protracted proceedings, health issues, inability to travel, and lack of income.

The court, while acknowledging the applicant's subjective distress, found that the objective criteria for urgency and a likely failure of justice under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act were not met.

The court emphasized the complexity of the issues, the need for a three-justice panel (Divisional Court's expertise), and the availability of alternative arrangements like video conferencing.

The motion for leave was dismissed, and the judicial review application was transferred to the Divisional Court.