Barry E. Wadsworth

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

The plaintiff successfully obtained an interim injunction against the defendants during a labour strike that was causing significant delays to the plaintiff's operations.

The only remaining issue was the quantum of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $205,000, including significant disbursements for private investigators, while the defendants suggested $15,000.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs excessive and punitive, noting the legal and factual issues were straightforward.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $37,083.80, which included a significantly reduced allowance for the investigator disbursements and legal fees.

In ongoing proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicants sought approval of an Employee Hardship Application Process and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The requested hardship process was unopposed and approved.

Certain noteholders sought conditions requiring enhanced reporting and procedural safeguards in relation to the claims process and employee claims.

The court held that the statutory test under s. 11(6) of the CCAA was satisfied because the circumstances warranted the extension and the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence.

The stay extension was granted, while proposed procedural changes to the claims process were found more appropriately addressed through a motion to vary existing orders.

The applicant alleged that his union and its officials discriminated against him on the basis of his disabilities (fibromyalgia, sleep disorder, and alcoholism) by failing to adequately represent him after his employer terminated his employment for failing to provide sufficient medical documentation.

The applicant claimed the union did not do enough to assist him, failed to properly represent his interests during the grievance process, and pressured him into accepting an improvident settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union's actions or inactions were based on the applicant's disabilities or that he was treated differently than other members because of discriminatory factors.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer and union following the termination of his employment and a subsequent grievance settlement.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer, finding the grievance settlement and release appropriately dealt with those allegations.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application against the union to proceed, as the allegations of discrimination by the union were not addressed in the grievance process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for breach of settlement, noting section 45.9 only applies to settlements of human rights applications.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order sanctioning the monitor's methodology for distributing funds in Nortel's Health and Welfare Trust under the CCAA.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the specific termination clause was not of significance to the practice, the appeal was not prima facie meritorious, and granting leave would unduly hinder the progress of the restructuring.

Costs were awarded to the Monitor.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order approving a settlement in the CCAA proceedings of Nortel Networks.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding no procedural or substantive unfairness in the settlement.

The motion judge had carefully balanced the various interests at stake and made no demonstrable error.

The moving parties, Objecting LTD Beneficiaries, sought an order expediting their motion for leave to appeal and consolidating the leave motion with the appeal itself.

The responding parties consented to expediting the leave motion but opposed consolidation.

The court agreed with the responding parties, finding no urgency requiring consolidation as benefits continued until the end of the year.

A schedule for the expedited leave motion was approved.

The appellants, representing unionized and non-unionized former employees of Nortel, appealed a decision dismissing their motions for directions to compel Nortel to pay severance, termination, and retirement benefits during its CCAA restructuring.

The appellants argued that the payments were protected under s. 11.3(a) of the CCAA as compensation for ongoing services, and that the CCAA stay could not override provincial Employment Standards Act obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the payments were for past services and that the doctrine of federal paramountcy allowed the CCAA stay to suspend the immediate payment obligations under the provincial legislation to facilitate the restructuring.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the Registrant's gaming registration based on his conduct during a strike, which led to a criminal charge for threatening bodily harm, and his failure to disclose Highway Traffic Act convictions.

The parties reached an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a two-week suspension of the Registrant's gaming registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the Registrant's gaming employee registration based on his involvement in a picket line mischief incident and his failure to disclose Highway Traffic Act convictions on his disclosure forms.

Following an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered a three-week suspension of the Registrant's gaming registration.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitration award that denied its grievance regarding the interpretation of a contracting out provision in a collective agreement.

The union argued the arbitrator failed to answer all questions or provide sufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's decision was reasonable, consistent with his findings of fact, and sufficiently complete to allow for proper analysis.

The applicant, a real estate broker, sought judicial review of a decision by the Discipline Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) that found him guilty of professional misconduct for advertising properties without consent.

The applicant argued that RECO did not exercise a statutory power of decision and alleged bias in the disciplinary process.

The Divisional Court held that RECO's disciplinary bodies do exercise a statutory power of decision subject to judicial review.

However, the court dismissed the application on the merits, finding no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness, as the applicant was provided full disclosure and a fair opportunity to be heard.

The self-represented applicant filed a notice of motion to review an order refusing leave to extend the time for bringing an appeal, but failed to perfect the motion.

The respondents sought to have the motion dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal declined to dismiss the motion, noting the lack of time limits in the Rules for perfecting such a motion, the applicant's unrepresented status, and the respondents' failure to bring a formal motion to dismiss.

The court scheduled the motion for a full hearing and set strict deadlines for perfection.

The appellants, Air Ontario pilots, brought an action against the respondents, Air Canada pilots, for breach of contract based on the union constitution after the respondents refused to implement an arbitration award integrating their seniority lists.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the historical legal fiction of a web of contracts between individual union members is no longer necessary or practical.

Instead, the Court recognized that a trade union is a legal entity capable of entering into a contract of membership with each individual member, and therefore, union members cannot be held personally liable to one another for breaching the union constitution.