Brianne Taylor

The appellant real estate developers sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a cost-sharing dispute with an electricity distributor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the OEB had merely provided an opinion and had not exercised a statutory power of decision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OEB's interpretation of the Distribution System Code to resolve the parties' complaint constituted a final, binding decision under its exclusive statutory jurisdiction.

As such, the decision was of a sufficiently public character to attract public law remedies, including certiorari, and constituted the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The plaintiff, a waste disposal broker, brought a motion for summary judgment alleging the defendant waste disposal service provider breached non-solicitation, non-compete, and confidentiality provisions of a four-year waste disposal services agreement, as well as the duty of good faith.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for judgment on unpaid invoices totalling $37,611.47.

The court interpreted the restrictive covenants narrowly, finding they were geographically limited to Ontario, that the definition of "GIC Client" required an active commercial relationship, and that business relationships were location-specific rather than entity-wide.

The plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the restrictive covenants, confidentiality obligations, or duty of good faith.

The plaintiff's motion and action were dismissed, and the defendant was granted judgment on its counterclaim for unpaid invoices.

Binance Holdings Limited appealed orders from the Divisional Court and Ontario Securities Commission regarding an investigation into Binance's operations in Ontario.

The Commission had issued a summons demanding production of documents and communications relating to alleged violations of the Securities Act.

Binance challenged the summons as unconstitutionally overbroad under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Divisional Court erred in declining to judicially review the Charter arguments and that the summons was an unreasonable seizure because it lacked a reasonable foundation to believe the demanded documents were relevant to the investigation.

The defendant FundEX brought a motion for default judgment on its crossclaim against the co-defendants (the Reeves defendants) to recover indemnity for a $2.29 million settlement paid to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' action alleged that Reeves, a FundEX employee, defrauded them of their investments.

FundEX settled the main action and noted the Reeves defendants in default on the crossclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for default judgment because FundEX's crossclaim failed to plead the material facts necessary to claim indemnity for a settlement under section 2 of the Negligence Act.

The dismissal was without prejudice, granting FundEX leave to amend its crossclaim and bring a new motion.

The Attorney General for Ontario applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a provincial court judge's refusal to issue a general warrant and assistance order.

The police sought to use the general warrant to seize cryptocurrency held on a third-party exchange (Binance) by compelling the exchange to transfer the funds to a police-controlled wallet.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the general warrant was not available because other provisions in the Criminal Code, specifically Part XII.2 relating to digital assets warrants and restraint orders, provide a substantive equivalent for seizing such assets.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against Binance for selling crypto derivatives products without filing a prospectus, contrary to the Securities Act.

Binance brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong, relying on an arbitration agreement in its online terms of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement void ab initio as contrary to public policy and unconscionable, given the disproportionate cost of arbitration in Hong Kong compared to the average investor's claim and the inequality of bargaining power in the standard form 'click' contract.

The appellant, Matthew Paik, initiated private prosecutions against six police officers, alleging they illegally preserved surveillance video.

The Crown intervened to withdraw these charges, asserting a lack of reasonable and probable grounds for prosecution.

Paik sought certiorari in the Superior Court, arguing the Crown's intervention was in bad faith and an abuse of process.

The Superior Court dismissed his application, finding the Crown's actions appropriate and no evidence of bad faith.

Paik appealed this decision, as well as an earlier order concerning the disclosure of police officers' birth dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Crown's discretion to withdraw private prosecutions when reasonable and probable grounds are absent, and noting the appellant failed to demonstrate bad faith or abuse of process.

The court also found the appeal regarding the disclosure of birth dates to be moot given the withdrawal of the underlying charges.

The plaintiffs brought a class action against mutual fund managers for allowing certain investors to engage in frequent short-term trading (market timing/time zone arbitrage), which allegedly diluted the returns of long-term unitholders.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the funds and breached the standard of care by failing to prevent, and actively facilitating, frequent short-term trading contrary to their prospectuses.

However, the court dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding no bad faith or dishonesty.

The matter was directed to proceed to a damages trial.

The applicants subscribed for flow-through shares in mining companies, which renounced Canadian exploration expenses to them.

The CRA later reassessed the companies and the applicants, disallowing the expenses.

The applicants sought immediate indemnification from the respondent under their subscription agreements for the taxes paid under the reassessments.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the indemnities were not payable until the amount of taxes was 'definitively determined' or 'determined', which had not yet occurred as the respondent's appeal of the CRA reassessment was still pending.