Christine Kilby

The appellant recruitment agency sued the respondent trucking companies for breach of contract after its services were terminated.

The trial judge found only the subsidiary company liable for failing to provide six months' notice, but that company subsequently went bankrupt.

On appeal, the appellant argued the parent companies were liable for inducing breach of contract and under the common employer doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the inducing breach claim was not pleaded at trial and lacked the requisite intent, and upholding the trial judge's finding that the contract was solely with the subsidiary.

The respondents' cross-appeal regarding a Sanderson costs order was also dismissed.

In a proposed national class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM semiconductor devices, the representative plaintiffs sought approval of four additional settlement agreements with certain defendants and approval of class counsel fees.

The court assessed whether the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Although no finalized distribution protocol for settlement funds had yet been developed, the court concluded the settlements—totaling $23.325 million and including cooperation provisions—were reasonable given litigation risk and the benefit of cooperation against non‑settling defendants.

The court also scrutinized class counsel’s request for a 30% contingency fee of approximately $7.13 million.

Finding that percentage excessive at this stage of the proceedings, the court reduced the fee award to 20% of total settlements achieved to date and approved an interim fee of $4,180,345.59.

The appellant electricity distributor appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Energy Board's refusal to allow recovery of $14.9 million from a rate deferral account.

The appellant argued that a 2002 interim order had approved its revenue requirement and rate deferral plan, and that subsequent legislation (Bill 210) had deemed the interim order final.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it reasonable for the Board to conclude that the interim order did not approve the revenue requirement or deferral plan, as no prudency review had occurred.

The Court noted the appellant could still apply to the Board for a proper prudency review.

The appellant, a licensed electricity distributor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board denying the recovery of approximately $15 million in deferred costs accumulated in a regulatory asset account.

The appellant argued that a 2002 interim rate order implicitly approved the deferral plan and that subsequent legislation freezing rates made the order final, entitling them to recovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the interim order did not approve the deferral plan and that the Board was justified in requiring a prudency review before allowing the recovery of costs from ratepayers.

The appellant franchisee received a disclosure document from the respondent franchisor more than 14 days after paying a franchise fee, but six months before executing the franchise agreement.

Nearly two years later, the franchisee sought to rescind the agreement under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the franchisee had no right of rescission.

Section 6(2) applies only when no disclosure document is ever provided, and section 6(1) requires rescission within 60 days of receiving a late or deficient document, which the franchisee failed to do.