Benjamin Zarnett

Appeal from an arbitral award under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 concerning a joint venture relating to mining concessions in Peru.

The arbitrator held that the appellants breached a contractual right of first offer and a trust relationship by granting a cesión minera (assignment of concession rights) to a third party without offering the opportunity to the respondents.

The court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that entering into the cesión minera triggered the right of first offer and constituted a breach of the contractual trust arrangement.

However, the court found the arbitrator erred in law by concluding that the parties’ relationship constituted a partnership giving rise to broader fiduciary duties and by crafting a remedy tied to the broader share purchase agreement rather than the cesión minera itself.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine appropriate terms for offering the cesión minera to the respondents.

The appeal addressed whether a federal regulator had statutory authority to implement a market-based regime requiring negotiations over compensation for retransmission of local television signals.

The majority held the proposed regime exceeded statutory authority and conflicted with the copyright scheme governing retransmission rights and exceptions.

The dissent would have found a sufficient statutory basis and no operational conflict between the two statutes.

The appeal was allowed, with costs throughout.

The appellants, auditors and underwriters of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed an order declaring that their claims for contribution and indemnity against Sino-Forest were 'equity claims' under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The claims arose from proposed shareholder class actions alleging misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'equity claim' in s. 2(1) of the CCAA focuses on the nature of the claim rather than the identity of the claimant.

The court found that the appellants' claims for contribution and indemnity were clearly connected to the shareholders' equity claims and thus fell within the expansive statutory definition.

The appellant, a retail tenant, appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract claim against its landlord for failing to provide additional parking spaces.

The trial judge found a breach but concluded the appellant failed to prove the breach caused a loss, as expert evidence showed vacant spaces were available during peak periods.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding and dismissed the appeal.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the trial costs order, finding the trial judge erred in using non-Rule 49 offers to offset time spent on an unsuccessful defence.

The Court awarded the respondents $200,000 in trial costs and $30,000 in appeal costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment in an action regarding the supply of defective pipes.

The defendants argued the motion judge erred in interpreting supply agreements, limitation periods, and the effect of settlement conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the issues were particular to the parties, did not raise conflicting decisions on matters of principle, and did not involve matters of broad public importance.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act and to certify a class proceeding against the defendants for misrepresentation, conspiracy, and oppression.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fabricated a financial crisis by including a 'going concern' note in the company's financial statements to artificially depress the share price, allowing insiders to acquire shares cheaply.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial, as the financial disclosures were factual, required by GAAP, and made after reasonable investigation.

The court also refused to certify the conspiracy claim due to a lack of factual basis and struck the oppression claim, ruling that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an oppression remedy under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act.

Following the dismissal of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The defendants had succeeded on one of four principal issues, resulting in partial success that justified a reduction in the plaintiff’s recoverable costs.

The court considered the proportional success of the parties and the relative time and resources expended by counsel.

Applying reductions for both partial success and excessive docketed time, the court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable amount under Rule 57.01.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to pursue a class action against CIBC and its senior officers for alleged secondary market misrepresentations concerning CIBC's exposure to the U.S. residential mortgage market.

The court found that the plaintiffs met the test for leave and certification for the statutory claim.

However, applying the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Sharma v. Timminco Limited, the court held that the statutory claim was time-barred because leave was not obtained within the three-year limitation period under s. 138.14 of the Securities Act.

Consequently, both motions were dismissed.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a commercial action alleging defective raw materials supplied for thermoplastic piping systems.

They argued the claims under an earlier supply agreement were barred by the Limitations Act and that liability disclaimers in later agreements excluded all contractual and tort liability.

The court held the limitation period for the indemnity claim had not expired because the claim arose only after the plaintiff was served with underlying litigation relating to the alleged defects.

While the contractual disclaimers were sufficient to exclude liability for negligence, they did not clearly exclude the statutorily implied condition of fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act.

The court also found that alleged post‑contractual conduct potentially modifying the agreements raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was therefore refused and the action allowed to proceed.

The appellant commenced a proposed class action asserting a statutory cause of action under s. 130 of the Securities Act for misrepresentations in a prospectus.

The motion judge found the claim was barred by the limitation period in s. 138 of the Securities Act and was not saved by the suspension of limitation periods in s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that a prior class action appeal did not encompass the s. 130 claim, meaning the suspension of the limitation period ended when the time to appeal the dismissal of that specific claim expired.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against mutual fund managers for permitting market timing, which allegedly caused losses to long-term investors.

The defendants had previously entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding the same conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the OSC proceedings were the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the OSC proceedings were regulatory and lacked participatory rights for investors, and therefore did not fulfill the access to justice goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was deemed the preferable procedure.

Following a change in corporate control, the new management of Echo Energy Canada Inc. sought to assess the paid accounts of three law firms retained by the former management.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding no 'special circumstances' under s. 11 of the Solicitors Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The Court found that the application judge erred in principle by adopting a lawyer-focused perspective and failing to consider evidence that the former directors may not have acted in the company's best interests when approving the accounts of litigation counsel (Lenczner and Voorheis).

Special circumstances were established for those accounts.

However, the appeal regarding the corporate counsel (McCarthy) was dismissed as no special circumstances were shown.

The corporation sought an order approving a proposed arrangement to collapse its dual-class share structure by purchasing for cancellation all outstanding Class B shares for consideration comprising 9 million newly issued Class A shares and US$300 million in cash.

The application judge approved the arrangement.

The opposing shareholders appealed, arguing the application judge erred in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly applied the BCE test.

The corporation was not required to demonstrate with certainty that the benefits of the arrangement would offset the costs, but only a reasonable prospect of clearly identified benefits.

The affirmative vote of the Class A shareholders was important evidence supporting the fairness of the arrangement.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, renewing two arguments made at trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge's reasons and conclusion, dismissing the appeal and awarding agreed costs of $10,000 to the respondent.

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 applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which applies to complaints previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Commission confirmed that the applicant's underlying complaint had been closed as withdrawn before the transition date.

The Tribunal held that the complaint was not 'filed' with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1) and dismissed the application, noting the applicant could still file a new application under section 34.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision that overturned a costs award in her favour.

The applicant had previously admitted to destroying evidence relevant to a criminal proceeding, prompting a good character hearing for her admission to the Law Society.

The Hearing Panel admitted her and awarded her costs, finding the hearing unwarranted.

The Appeal Panel overturned the costs award, emphasizing the Law Society's public interest mandate to hold hearings when serious misconduct raises character issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable.

The appellant commenced an action alleging the respondents conspired to falsely accuse him of fraud, while criminal proceedings against him for that fraud were ongoing.

The motion judge struck the claim, characterizing it as malicious prosecution lacking the essential element of a favourable determination in the criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that even if framed as conspiracy to injure, the claim could not proceed in the face of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim struck in its entirety.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered a proposed plan of arrangement for a leveraged buyout of BCE Inc. that would add substantial debt to Bell Canada, reducing the trading value of its debentures.

The debentureholders opposed the arrangement, claiming oppression under s. 241 of the CBCA and arguing the arrangement was not fair and reasonable under s. 192.

The Court held that the directors' fiduciary duty is owed to the corporation, not to specific stakeholders, though directors may consider stakeholder interests.

The debentureholders failed to establish a reasonable expectation that their investment grade rating would be maintained.

The Court affirmed the trial judge's approval of the arrangement, finding it had a valid business purpose and resolved objections in a fair and balanced way.

The appellants, holders of Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) notes, appealed a decision sanctioning a restructuring plan under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The plan included comprehensive releases of third-party financial institutions from liability, including certain claims relating to fraud.

The appellants argued the CCAA does not permit third-party releases and that the releases were unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the CCAA permits third-party releases that are reasonably connected to the proposed restructuring.

The Court found the application judge did not err in concluding the plan was fair and reasonable, as the releases were necessary for the restructuring to succeed and benefited the creditors as a whole.