Andrew Aaron Finkelstein

The plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation by a public issuer and its directors and officers in continuous disclosure documents.

They also requested approval to discontinue common law negligent misrepresentation and oppression remedy claims in favour of the statutory cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiffs met the statutory leave test by demonstrating good faith and a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

It further concluded that discontinuance of the common law and oppression claims would not prejudice class members because the statutory claim avoided reliance issues and certification difficulties.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with identifiable class members, common issues, and a preferable procedure established.

ERM brought motions to consolidate four related actions arising from environmental contamination and a remediation agreement, and to strike the property owners' claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the actions should be tried together to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to separate counsel and to prevent circumvention of limitation periods.

The court also dismissed the motions to strike, holding that the claims for contribution and indemnity were not premature given ongoing Ministry of the Environment involvement, and that it was not plain and obvious the nuisance claims would fail.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed a ruling by the Executive Director of the Ontario Racing Commission ordering it to pay $100,000 for investigation costs.

The costs were imposed as a condition for the issuance of a 2005 Purse Account Manager's Licence.

The Panel allowed the appeal, finding that while the costs were reasonable, OHHA never consented to the terms of the 2005 licence.

Because OHHA did not accept the terms, the licence was never issued, and the ORC's claim for the $100,000 in costs ended.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission to redistribute purse monies among racetracks.

The Commission had adopted a Framework to move purse funds from racetracks with profitable slot machine operations to those with more active wagering to re-invigorate horse racing.

The applicant argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction, claiming it conflicted with federal pari-mutuel regulations and interfered with existing contractual rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission had broad regulatory authority under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, that its actions did not conflict with federal regulations, and that its regulatory powers permitted incidental interference with existing contracts.

The appellant, Aaron Waxman, appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Commission Judges to freeze $12,500 in purse winnings accrued by his horse, Jinglejanglejingle.

The purse was frozen following the suspension of the appellant's brother, who previously co-owned the horse.

The Panel found that a bona fide transfer of ownership to the appellant had occurred prior to the races in question, and the Judges had not required prior approval for this transfer.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to the purse winnings.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association, Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, and the Northern Horsemen’s Association appealed the Director's decision regarding the 2011 Ontario Racing Program.

The appeals concerned the minimum number of race dates, scheduling, and redistribution of purse monies at certain racetracks.

The Ontario Racing Commission denied the appeals of OHHA and GCGC, but varied the decision for NHA by adding three race dates in December and dropping two dates for Sudbury Downs, resulting in 66 live race dates for 2011.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) appealed the Director's decision regarding the Ontario Racing Program 2011.

The ORC Administration brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Panel lacked jurisdiction to reverse the Commission's Policy Decision on the Framework.

The Panel ruled that while it has no jurisdiction to reverse the Framework as an ORC Policy, it does have jurisdiction to alter race dates within the Framework.

Therefore, the Panel has jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the merits and grant relief within the Framework.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for declaratory relief under the Charter and the award of substantial indemnity costs against him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, agreeing with the application judge that the doctrine of collateral attack was a complete answer to the application.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award and allowed that portion of the appeal, finding no basis for substantial indemnity costs.

The costs award was reduced to partial indemnity, and the respondents were awarded $5,000 in costs for the appeal.

Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.

Four appeals were heard consecutively to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims for damages against the federal Crown, or whether such claims must be brought in the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The Crown argued that the claims constituted collateral attacks on federal administrative decisions and required prior judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages in contract and tort against the Crown.

Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court only for prerogative remedies and declaratory relief, not for damages.

The plaintiffs' appeals were allowed and the Crown's appeals were dismissed.