Arden Beddoes

This endorsement addresses seven motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of provisions of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, and its Regulation 701/20, which were found to violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to intervene to Animal Alliance, Centre for Free Expression (CFE), Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), and Labour Issues Coordinating Committee (LICC), finding they offered useful and distinct perspectives without unduly expanding the appeal's scope.

Motions by Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW), Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE), and Animal Environmental Legal Advocacy (AEL Advocacy) were dismissed, primarily due to concerns about expanding the issues or duplication of arguments.

The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.

They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.

However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.

The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.

In CCAA proceedings involving the Nortel group, the joint administrators of certain European, Middle Eastern, and African debtor entities brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from a non‑party accounting firm relating to transfer pricing arrangements and intellectual property development.

The court reviewed the governing principles for non‑party production, including the requirement that such orders be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the documents.

The court found that many of the requested documents had already been communicated to the client and were likely produced through existing discovery processes.

For documents not communicated to the client, the moving party failed to demonstrate their importance or any evidentiary gap justifying exceptional production.

The court concluded that proceeding to trial without the requested materials would not be unfair and dismissed the motion with costs.

The applicants sought a declaration that they validly exercised a shotgun buy/sell provision in a shareholders agreement, requiring the respondents to transfer their shares in the corporation.

The respondents argued the shotgun notice was invalid because it was issued jointly by two shareholders, and alternatively, that the applicants repudiated the agreement by demanding a release not required by the contract.

The court held that the shotgun provision, interpreted in its factual matrix, allowed for joint exercise by the applicants as a single shareholder group.

The court further found that the applicants did not repudiate the agreement, as they were ready and willing to close without the disputed release, whereas the respondents refused to close.

The application was granted, and the respondents were ordered to transfer their shares.