Catherine M. Gleason-Mercier

The applicants brought preliminary objections to the admissibility of two pieces of evidence in an application proceeding concerning contingent fee recognition.

The respondent law firm and lawyers sought recognition of contingent fees claimed under a Partial Contingency Agreement dated June 17, 2011.

The court ruled on the admissibility of an expert report from a former Federal Court judge and a third affidavit from one of the respondent lawyers.

The court found that expert evidence on the complexity of the case, risks involved, and results achieved was not necessary, as these matters were within the experience and knowledge of the court and were adequately addressed through extensive evidence and comprehensive legal submissions.

The court also found the expert lacked the requisite qualifications to opine on the specific topics.

The court reserved judgment on the admissibility of the third affidavit pending further consideration of its relevance.

The responding parties brought an application seeking declaratory relief regarding the moving parties' alleged failure to retain an operator for a light rail transit project.

The moving parties brought a motion to stay the application in favour of arbitration, relying on a dispute resolution clause in prior Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted the stay, applying the competence-competence principle and finding that the moving parties established an arguable case that the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement.

The court also found no undue delay by the moving parties in seeking the stay.

The plaintiffs, prospective franchisees, entered into agreements with the defendant franchisor to open two frozen yogurt stores and paid a $75,000 development fee.

After failing to secure suitable store locations within the agreed and extended timeframes, the franchisor terminated the agreements and retained the fee.

The plaintiffs sued for rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging deficient disclosure regarding lease costs and location availability, as well as common law misrepresentation and frustration of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the disclosure provided was sufficient to allow an informed investment decision, no misrepresentations were made, and the failure to find a location was a foreseeable event explicitly contemplated by the contracts.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's jury notice and sought costs of $80,461.65 on a substantial indemnity basis or $61,175.38 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The court rejected the defendant's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in refusing to withdraw its jury notice despite the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the expectations of the parties, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $42,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's jury notice in an action arising from a tender process for the refurbishment of a nuclear reactor.

AECL argued the case was too complex for a jury, that a jury trial against a federal Crown agent is prohibited by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (CLPA), and that the plaintiff sought equitable relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that the factual and legal issues were too complex for a jury and that section 26 of the CLPA applies to AECL, prohibiting a jury trial.

The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff was seeking equitable relief.

The applicant brought three motions seeking extensions of time to seek leave to appeal from dismissals by lower appeal courts of his convictions on three separate charges: one assault on a police officer conviction from 1993, and two provincial offences convictions from 2014-2015 under the Trespass to Property Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three motions.

For the 1993 conviction, the applicant's delay of nearly 23 years was found to be inordinate and unjustifiable, with no bona fide intention to appeal demonstrated within the prescribed time.

For the two provincial offences convictions, the applicant's delay of over three months was inadequately explained, and the proposed appeals failed to meet the high threshold for granting leave to appeal under the Provincial Offences Act, as they involved questions of fact rather than law alone.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they engaged in insider trading after receiving material non-public information from an administrative assistant at an investment bank.

The Commission relied on circumstantial evidence, including the proximity of telephone calls to highly profitable trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Commission's inferences were reasonable and that the use of compelled examination transcripts was procedurally fair.

The Court also upheld the sanctions, which included trading bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders.