Brandon Michael Kain

The proposed intervener coalition sought leave to intervene in an employment-contract appeal concerning enforceability of termination provisions.

The court held the coalition would provide a distinct perspective on the effects of termination clauses on vulnerable and low-wage workers and granted leave on terms aligned with a prior intervener order.

This decision concerns an appeal under section 45(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, from an arbitral award regarding four disputes arising out of a major public-private partnership infrastructure project (Highway 427 expansion).

The appellant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation), challenged the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the Project Agreement on four issues: the Crossfall Dispute, the Zenway Boulevard Dispute, the 407 ETR Dispute, and the 2014-2016 Dispute.

The court held that the tribunal correctly identified and applied the principles of contractual interpretation, found no extricable errors of law, and dismissed the appeal.

This costs endorsement followed a decision on an appeal and cross-appeal.

Given the divided success of the parties on both the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear its own costs.

Stelco Inc. sought leave to appeal an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it to complete the severance and conveyance of a parcel of land (the "Reconveyance Parcel") to Legacy Lands Limited Partnership's nominee, in accordance with a 2018 reconveyance agreement.

Ernst & Young Inc., as court-appointed Monitor in the U.S. Steel Canada Inc. CCAA proceeding, and DGAP Investments Ltd., a purchaser of the land, opposed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Stelco's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in concluding the CCAA applied, and that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious nor did it raise issues of significance to insolvency practice.

The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to grant specific performance and his finding regarding waiver of MOECC consent.

The appellants, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and CIBC Mellon Global Securities Services Company, sought an order staying a lower court judgment pending appeal.

They argued that the application judge's amendments to his reasons for judgment created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion judge, Lauwers J.A., dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a real likelihood or probability of bias.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and the overarching interests of justice, concluding that a stay was not warranted.

Leave was granted to file a Supplementary Notice of Appeal.

The applicant sought to vary a previous judgment regarding contract beneficiaries and liability for knowing receipt.

The court declined to change the finding on beneficiaries (para 19) as it was an intentional commercial interpretation.

The court did remove an erroneous finding of breach of contract against CIBC Mellon, but declined to substitute it with a finding of knowing receipt, as that relief was not sought in the initial application.

The court granted the applicant's request to introduce evidence of damages related to data sharing by all custodial entities of Mellon Financial Corporation at the time of the agreement, despite the previous finding that those entities were entitled to receive the data.

The appellant contractor brought an action for breach of contract after the respondent condominium corporations exercised a contractual termination clause following months during which the respondents knowingly misled the appellant into believing the agreement would not be terminated.

The majority held that the duty of honest performance, as formulated in Bhasin v. Hrynew, precludes active deception and applies to the exercise of all contractual rights, including termination rights; the respondents breached that duty by failing to correct the false impression they had created, which was directly linked to performance of the contract.

A concurring minority agreed on liability but differed on the measure of damages, holding that the duty of honest performance vindicates the reliance interest rather than the expectation interest.

The dissent would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondents' conduct did not materially contribute to the appellant's mistaken belief and did not constitute the active dishonesty required for a breach of the duty of honest performance.

The appeal was allowed and the trial judge's award of damages was reinstated.

The Plaintiffs sought costs after successfully certifying a class action and dismissing a stay motion.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in all-inclusive costs, comprising $366,149.88 in disbursements and $333,850.12 in fees.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of costs, the importance of certification motions in class actions, and the need for unsuccessful parties to provide their own bills of costs for comparison.

A portion of the costs ($30,000) was specifically allocated to two defendants (Bristol-Myers and Otsuka) for the stay motion, which the third defendant (Lundbeck) did not participate in.

An appeal from a summary judgment decision concerning the entitlement of a wrongfully dismissed employee to exercise stock options and restricted share units during the reasonable notice period.

The employer argued that contractual language prevented vesting after dismissal, relying on precedent.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the employee was entitled to damages for lost opportunity to exercise awards that would have vested during the notice period, distinguishing the controlling precedent on the basis that the contractual language lacked sufficient clarity to unambiguously remove common law rights.

The employee's cross-appeal regarding damages calculation was also dismissed.

A corn grower who neither purchased nor planted genetically modified corn seed brought a proposed class action against the seed manufacturer for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the Competition Act.

The manufacturer had commercialized the seed in North America before obtaining approval in China.

The seed's traits commingled with all North American corn, causing China to ban all North American corn imports, resulting in a market glut and price collapse.

The motion judge struck all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the negligence claim for premature commercialization while upholding dismissal of the misrepresentation and Competition Act claims.

The plaintiff, a commercial corn grower, brought a proposed class action against the defendants, manufacturers of genetically modified corn seeds (Agrisure), alleging negligence and breach of the Competition Act.

The plaintiff claimed that North American corn prices fell due to China's rejection of corn shipments containing unapproved Agrisure, causing economic loss to non-Agrisure farmers.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing no duty of care existed for pure economic loss.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the claim was framed in misrepresentation, the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' alleged undertaking not to introduce Agrisure without global approvals was unreasonable, as commingling was inevitable and preventing it would require withholding the product from the domestic market, which had regulatory approval.

The court also noted the risk of indeterminate liability and the illogical elevation of foreign approvals over domestic ones.

The appellant brought a proposed class action asserting statutory claims for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and common law negligent misrepresentation against a foreign banking corporation.

The motion judge dismissed the statutory claim and stayed the common law claim, finding that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the jurisdiction appeal but allowed the costs appeal in part, reducing the costs award from $1,000,455.22 to $800,000.

The court held that the common law test for "real and substantial connection" applies to the definition of "responsible issuer" under the Securities Act, and that the defendant did not have such a connection to Ontario merely because the plaintiff accessed disclosure documents from his home computer in Ontario.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice conditionally approving a third-party litigation funding agreement for a proposed class action.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus only appealable to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional approval order was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties.

The order merely conditioned approval on amendments to the funding agreement; failure to amend resulted in dismissal of the approval motion, not from the order itself.

The appeal was quashed.

The Court considered an appeal arising during an indefinite strike by members of Les avocats et notaires de l’État québécois, where an adjournment request had been refused as part of an essential-services context.

By the hearing date, the strike had ended and a special statute had required a return to work.

The Court held the issue was moot and dismissed the appeal without costs.

It stated that dismissing the appeal did not endorse either the process used or the validity of the considerations identified by the Court of Appeal.

The Court addressed three securities class action appeals on whether limitation periods for statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claims are suspended before leave is granted, and on related nunc pro tunc, special circumstances, leave-threshold, and certification issues.

The CIBC and IMAX appeals were dismissed, while the Celestica appeal was allowed.

The appellant union challenged the employer's unilaterally imposed mandatory random alcohol testing policy at a paper mill.

The arbitration board allowed the grievance, finding the policy unjustified absent evidence of a workplace alcohol problem.

On judicial review, the board's decision was set aside, and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the union's appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada (6-3) allowed the appeal, holding the arbitration board's decision was reasonable.

The majority found the board properly applied the established arbitral "balancing of interests" test, which requires evidence of enhanced safety risks to justify random testing.

The dissent would have found the board's decision unreasonable for departing from the arbitral consensus on the evidentiary threshold without explanation.