Andrea Gonsalves

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed a final order of the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) that increased the annual pole attachment charge payable to Hydro One Networks Inc. The appellants argued that the OEB breached procedural fairness by expanding the scope of their review and vary motion to include new evidence and issues, and erred in law by refusing to order production of a pole sharing agreement between Hydro One and Bell Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB conducted the hearing fairly by granting the appellants' request for a hearing de novo and allowing all parties to present updated evidence.

The Court also held that the OEB's refusal to order production of the actual agreement, while requiring disclosure of its relevant financial impacts, was within its procedural jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice.

The Plaintiffs brought a refusals motion seeking answers to questions refused during the examinations for discovery of the Attorney General of Canada's representatives.

The questions pertained to information gathered during inquiries into the torture of Canadian citizens by foreign governments, the adoption of non-party inquiry testimony, production of in camera inquiry transcripts, and underlying evidence for allegations made against the Plaintiffs.

The court analyzed each refusal discretely, rejecting a global proportionality argument, and ordered some questions to be answered while upholding refusals for others, particularly those asking the AGC to adopt non-party testimony.

The plaintiff broadcaster sought partial summary judgment to enforce payment of two dishonoured post‑dated cheques issued by the defendant in connection with a sports broadcasting agreement.

The defendant argued that equitable set‑off should apply because the cheques were issued for services to be rendered and the dispute did not involve international commerce.

The court held that under the Bills of Exchange Act equitable set‑off is not available as a defence to an action on a dishonoured cheque, and that the rule applies regardless of whether the transaction involves international trade or services yet to be performed.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the value of the dishonoured cheques.

However, because the defendant’s counterclaim raised triable issues, execution of the judgment was stayed on condition that the defendant pay the judgment amount with interest into court.

The appellants sued the respondent for breach of contract, defamation, negligence, and injurious falsehood, alleging that their business proposal on a reality television show was edited to misrepresent its merits.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that the appellant had signed a comprehensive release.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the release gave the respondent sole discretion to edit the recording and barred the claims, and that there was no independent duty of good faith that could alter the express terms of the contract.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission panel that found him guilty of animal abuse and imposed penalties including a 90-day suspension and a fine.

The panel had conducted a trial de novo following a previous successful judicial review by the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel applied the correct standard of proof and that its decision, based on circumstantial evidence, was reasonable.

The plaintiffs in three separate actions against the Government of Canada brought motions to strike Canada's Statements of Defence for failure to provide an adequate List of Documents.

In support, they served summonses to examine three government officials.

Canada brought a preliminary motion to quash the summonses, arguing it was immune from having its List of Documents challenged and that the summonses were an abuse of process.

The court dismissed Canada's motion, finding that the Crown's List of Documents can be challenged similarly to an Affidavit of Documents, and that the summonses were not an abuse of process, though the court imposed terms to prevent overreaching.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Panel of the Ontario Racing Commission, which found that the respondent was not obliged to pay $100,000 in investigatory costs.

The Panel concluded that the applicant's Director had given the respondent the option to not renew its licence and avoid paying the costs, an option the respondent accepted.

The Divisional Court held that the Director had the discretion to offer this option and that the Panel's decision was reasonable and correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal and a motion in the Superior Court.

The court ordered that the appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, be awarded costs in the cause in both courts, fixed at a total amount of $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission that reinstated the original results of a horse race, overturning a prior decision by the track Stewards regarding interference.

The applicants argued they were denied procedural fairness due to lack of notice, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and challenged the tribunal's findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that actual notice was established, there was no evidence of bias, and the tribunal's factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The plaintiffs sued Canada in the Superior Court of Justice, alleging complicity in their torture by foreign governments and Charter violations.

Canada redacted disclosed documents under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, claiming privilege on national security grounds, and applied to the Federal Court to confirm the prohibition on disclosure.

The plaintiffs moved in the Superior Court for unredacted production, arguing s. 38 unconstitutionally deprived the Superior Court of its core jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 38 is constitutionally valid at the pre-trial stage because pre-trial discovery against the Crown did not exist at Confederation, and set aside the motion judge's declaration regarding s. 38's validity at trial as premature.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal refusing to renew his registration as a real estate broker.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had participated in a mortgage fraud scheme by providing false appraisals, and concluded he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider imposing conditions on his license and by drawing an adverse inference from his initial exercise of his right to silence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision to revoke the license without conditions was reasonable given the egregious nature of the fraud, and that the Tribunal properly considered the timing of the appellant's cooperation in assessing his rehabilitation.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

Following the release of the court's reasons, counsel for the appellants requested a reconsideration of the costs of the applications, noting that the appellants were not separately represented as stated in the reasons.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum acknowledging the error but declined to reconsider the costs disposition, finding it remained appropriate because separate applications had been brought.

The appellants, former officers of a local union, were disciplined by an independent hearing officer pursuant to the union's constitution.

The union sought to enforce the hearing officer's decisions as arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application judge granted the enforcement, finding that the union constitution constituted an arbitration agreement.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the internal disciplinary proceedings were not arbitrations and the union constitution was not an arbitration agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the enforcement applications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at a compounded rate of 5.59% semi-annually for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant knew the funds would be reinvested to earn a compound return was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that compound interest is an appropriate measure of damages where the parties knew or should have known the disputed money would bear compound interest.