Christopher D. Bredt

This appeal concerned a dispute over loan repayments within a complex tax shelter scheme.

The appellants, two corporations (Fincos), sought repayment of loans advanced to an investor.

The investor argued that earlier loans were statute-barred and later loans were satisfied by preferred shares held in trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings: the claims for earlier loans were statute-barred due to an agency relationship establishing the commencement of the limitation period, and the later loans were indeed repayable and satisfied by the transfer and cancellation of preferred shares, interpreting the various agreements holistically.

The court dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding the cross-appeal moot given the main findings.

The appellant, Capital Sports Management Inc., appealed a motion judge's order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents to the respondent, Trinity Development Group Inc. The motion judge had found an implied joint retainer of the law firm Gowlings by both parties in relation to a joint venture, and ordered production of documents up to the commencement of the litigation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the implied joint retainer terminated in May 2016 when the parties became materially adverse and threatened litigation against each other.

Furthermore, the respondent had acquiesced to Gowlings continuing to act solely for the appellant after that date.

The appeal was allowed, and the production order was narrowed to exclude documents created after May 2016.

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP sought leave to intervene as a party in an appeal brought by Capital Sports Management Inc. The underlying appeal challenged an order requiring the production of certain solicitor-client documents based on a finding of an implied joint retainer among Capital Sports, Trinity Development Group Inc., and Gowlings.

Gowlings argued it had a direct interest in the appeal because its conduct and advice were directly impugned.

The court granted Gowlings leave to intervene as a party with limited participation rights, finding that its focused submissions would likely be useful to the court in addressing significant issues about solicitor-client privilege after the breakdown of a relationship involving an implied joint retainer.

The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.

The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.

The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.

The defendants (Trinity Development Group Inc., Trinity Albert LP, and John Ruddy) brought a motion to compel Capital Sports Management Inc. (CSMI) and Eugene Melnyk to produce documents related to the work of Gowling WLG LLP for RendezVous LeBreton Group (RLG) and the LeBreton Project.

Trinity argued that Gowlings was jointly retained by CSMI and Trinity in relation to the RLG joint venture, or that common interest privilege applied, or that CSMI had waived privilege.

CSMI contended that Gowlings acted solely for CSMI.

The court found that a joint retainer existed between Gowlings, CSMI, and Trinity for the RLG and LeBreton Project from July 23, 2015, to November 23, 2018, based on objective evidence including Gowlings' representation of RLG to third parties, shared instructions, and shared payment of fees.

The court also noted that CSMI's pleading of a fiduciary relationship with Trinity was inconsistent with its claim of privilege.

The motion to compel production was granted, requiring CSMI to produce the requested documents in unredacted form.

The moving defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from a failed joint venture to develop LeBreton Flats.

The court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets to satisfy a costs award, as its liabilities exceeded its assets.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient exigible assets, relying instead on future revenue streams which the court found inadequate.

The court concluded it was just to order security for costs, noting the moving defendants were minor players facing significant expenses and the plaintiff's controlling shareholder would otherwise be shielded from costs liability.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security in instalments.

The applicant sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision granting a union grievance regarding overtime pay for truck drivers.

The arbitrator found the employer did not qualify for the 60-hour overtime threshold under the highway transport exemption in O. Reg. 285/01 because it did not hold a valid CVOR under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Divisional Court held this interpretation was unreasonable, as the Regulation only required an operating licence under the repealed Truck Transportation Act and did not incorporate Highway Traffic Act requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the grievance dismissed.

Three cross-appeals arose from the interpretation of a 1985 environmental indemnity granted by the Province of Ontario to former pulp mill owners, their successors and assigns, in the context of the settlement of mercury contamination litigation brought by two First Nations.

The majority held that the indemnity did not cover first party regulatory compliance orders, as the motion judge made palpable and overriding factual errors, and the indemnity, properly read as a whole, was intended to cover only third party pollution claims.

The appeal of the Province was allowed; the appeals of the corporate successors were dismissed.

The dissent (Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ.) would have dismissed the Province's appeal and allowed the appeal of Resolute, concluding the indemnity covered the Director's remediation order, that the fettering doctrine did not render the indemnity unenforceable, and that Resolute — as Great Lakes' corporate successor — was entitled to the indemnity's protection, but Weyerhaeuser was not, as neither an assignee nor a corporate successor of Great Lakes or Reed.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff for an interlocutory injunction to prevent interference with the completion of a transmission project, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, finding that the injunction effectively resolved the main issue in dispute.

Costs were awarded forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $50,000 jointly against the institutional defendants and $15,000 against each of the two individual leaders of the blockade.

No costs were awarded against the remaining individual defendants.

Hydro One brought a motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with the completion of the Niagara Reinforcement Project (NRP).

The defendants, asserting indigenous rights and jurisdiction, had blocked access to the construction site.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a strong prima facie case of trespass, irreparable harm due to potential financial losses and safety risks, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court also held that as a private entity, Hydro One owed no duty to consult.

The injunction was granted.

The appellants, survivors and family members of victims of the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, brought a class action against Loblaws and Bureau Veritas seeking damages for negligence, vicarious liability, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that Bangladeshi law applied (not Ontario law), the claims were statute-barred under Bangladesh's one-year limitation period, and the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on all grounds.

The court also addressed a costs appeal, reducing the costs award by 30% to reflect the public interest component of the claims.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of commercial benchmarking data provided to the Treasury Board Secretariat.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misapprehended evidence and applied too high a standard of proof for the third-party records exemption under s. 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of probable harm to its competitive position if the redacted information was disclosed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a 1985 indemnity provided by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes and Reed covered the costs of complying with a 2011 Director's Order requiring remedial work at an abandoned mercury waste disposal site near Dryden, Ontario.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment in favour of Weyerhaeuser and Resolute, finding both were entitled to indemnification.

The appellate court was divided.

The majority (Brown and Lauwers JJ.A.) held that the 1985 indemnity did cover the costs of complying with the Director's Order, but found that Resolute had no legal interest in the indemnity because Bowater had assigned the full benefit to Weyerhaeuser in 1998.

The majority remitted the issue of Weyerhaeuser's rights as assignee to the trial court.

Justice Laskin dissented, arguing the 1985 indemnity covered only third-party pollution claims, not first-party regulatory compliance costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordering the disclosure of an unredacted forensic investigation report.

The Commissioner found that the report contained personal information exempt from disclosure under s. 14 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but ordered full disclosure based on the public interest override in s. 16.

The Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the Commissioner's failure to identify the specific personal information exempted under s. 14 made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the s. 16 balancing analysis.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $2 billion class action regarding the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh, the successful defendants sought costs totaling over $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued for no costs, asserting the case was novel and brought in the public interest.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were grounded in established negligence principles and prosecuted aggressively with an expectation of costs.

The court awarded the defendants their claimed costs in full on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs, victims of the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, brought a proposed class action in Ontario against Loblaws (who sourced garments from the factory) and Bureau Veritas (who conducted social audits).

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 21, arguing the claims were governed by Bangladesh law, were statute-barred, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction simpliciter, the claims were governed by Bangladesh law under the lex loci delicti rule and were statute-barred by a one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the court found that under both Bangladesh and Ontario law, it was plain and obvious that the defendants owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, nor was Loblaws vicariously liable or in breach of any fiduciary duty.

The action and the certification motion were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add new parties and assert additional causes of action, including nuisance, negligence, and various Charter and international covenant claims.

The defendants opposed the amendments and brought motions to strike.

The court denied leave to add new Ministries/Ministers, dismissed claims based on international covenants as not actionable in domestic law, and rejected most Charter claims (specifically s. 7) on the basis of issue estoppel, as these issues had been previously determined by the Environmental Review Tribunal and upheld by the Divisional Court.

However, the court permitted amendments for nuisance and negligence claims against the K2 defendants, acknowledging that the alleged harms were now realized post-construction.

The action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Director was dismissed.

This case concerns the interpretation of a 1985 indemnity agreement granted by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes Forest Products Limited (now Resolute FP Canada Inc.) and its successors and assigns, regarding mercury contamination.

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, a subsequent owner of the property, and Resolute sought indemnity from the Province for costs incurred complying with a 2011 environmental remediation order issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the indemnity's broad language covered statutory claims by provincial agencies and that the fettering doctrine did not apply to this business agreement.

Weyerhaeuser was also found to be able to rely on the indemnity as a successor or assignee.

This costs endorsement followed an appeal by the defendants regarding a Master's decision on production of documentation for damage claims.

The appeal was partially successful in obtaining some documentation but failed on the principal issue of 'flow-through costs.' The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing their settlement offer would have avoided costs.

The court found Rule 49.10(2) inapplicable to appeals but considered the plaintiffs' offer and the defendants' own costs submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $33,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding them fair and reasonable given the case's complexity, importance, and the parties' conduct.

The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which held that its jurisdiction to award costs under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 was limited by section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court determined that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness, as the Tribunal was interpreting its home statute and a closely connected statute.

The Court found the Tribunal's interpretation reasonable, concluding that because REBBA was enacted after February 14, 2000, and does not expressly state that it prevails over the SPPA, the SPPA's costs restrictions apply.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.