Alyssa Tomkins

The Association of Ontario Chicken Producers (AOCP) brought a motion for limited party (intervenor) status in an appeal by a dairy producer against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO).

The AOCP argued it had an interest in the constitutional and Competition Act issues raised by the appellant regarding supply management policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the AOCP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal, which concerned milk quota transfer policies.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status shortly before the scheduled hearing would cause prejudice and delay.

Following dismissal of a $15 million civil claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of bad faith litigation conduct and a rejected Rule 49 settlement offer of $250,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity for the entire proceeding but applied Rule 49 principles, awarding partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court also addressed the effect of a special fee arrangement between the defendant and its counsel, holding that costs cannot exceed the client’s actual obligation under s. 20(2) of the Solicitors Act.

Costs were fixed in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the scale of the litigation.

On a Rule 21 motion, several defendant chicken processors sought to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging damages arising from regulatory changes affecting interprovincial chicken supply.

The plaintiff alleged that industry participants and a marketing board conspired to eliminate its interprovincial supply business, contrary to the Competition Act and through intentional economic interference, conspiracy, and expropriation without compensation.

The court applied the “plain and obvious” test and held that most claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action and should proceed, including claims under s.45 and s.36 of the Competition Act, conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, and punitive damages.

However, references to “expropriated calculated base” and related pleading paragraphs were struck because the alleged property interest was not properly pleaded.

A reference to the Agreement on Internal Trade was also struck for inadequate identification, with leave to amend.

At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to advance the litigation diligently and that the action was a nullity due to the corporate plaintiff’s bankruptcy.

The court applied the two‑part test requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and the absence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendants.

Although the delay was significant, the court accepted the plaintiffs’ explanation relating to related litigation, financial constraints, and a change of counsel, and found insufficient prejudice to the defendants.

The action was permitted to proceed subject to a strict timetable, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of the status hearing.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of tender claim.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, was an ineligible bidder under the Fairness is a Two-Way Street Act because the effective bidder was its related Quebec corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had effectively relocated to Ontario by establishing a corporate office and expanding its operations in the province, thereby exempting it from the restrictions of the Act.