Christopher Di Matteo

The appellant vendor breached agreements of purchase and sale for two development properties.

The trial judge awarded the respondent purchaser $15.5 million in damages based on lost development profits, rejecting the appellant's argument that damages should be limited to the difference between the contract price and the resale price to a third party.

The trial judge also found the respondent did not fail to mitigate its damages when its affiliates purchased other properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in accepting the lost development profits approach endorsed by both parties' experts, as it appropriately measured the specific economic opportunity lost.

The Court also upheld the finding that the affiliates' purchases were independent transactions that did not mitigate the loss.

Rogers appealed a partial arbitral award regarding its distribution agreement with Glentel, which it co-owns with Bell.

The arbitrator had ruled that Rogers could not require Glentel to offer a Rogers Bank credit card bundled with telecommunications services, nor pay incremental commissions for it, as it was not an 'ancillary service' under the agreement.

The Superior Court determined that the appellate standard of review applies to statutory appeals under the Arbitration Act, 1991, following Vavilov.

Applying this standard, the court found no extricable errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the arbitrator's contractual interpretation or jurisdictional scope.

The appeal was dismissed.

Rogers Communications Inc. brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order and to file a redacted record in its appeal of a confidential arbitration award involving BCE Inc. and Glentel Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rogers failed to meet the strict test for limiting the open court principle set out in Sherman Estate.

The court held that merely treating agreements as confidential in a private arbitration does not establish a serious risk to an important public interest justifying a sealing order in a public court proceeding.

Air Canada challenged the Ontario Minister of Finance’s decision to deny repayment of taxes levied under s. 2(4.1) of the Gasoline Tax Act on fuel transfers at the Ottawa airport.

Air Canada argued the tax was constitutionally inapplicable under the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the tax does not trench on or impair the core of federal aeronautics jurisdiction and that the transaction had a sufficient connection to Ontario to ground the province’s jurisdiction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, Citibank Canada, sought rectification of its Pension Plan text, specifically the 2002 Restatement, to correct an unintended drafting error.

The error caused "Deferred Vested Members" to be treated differently from "Early Retirement Members" in pension benefit calculations, contrary to the plan's original intent and consistent administration since 2002.

The court applied the four-part test for rectification from Canada (Attorney General) v. Fairmont Hotels Inc., finding clear and cogent evidence that the error was an unintentional transcription mistake, not an error in judgment.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority and affected plan members did not oppose the application.

Rectification was granted to align the plan text with the true intentions.

The Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) brought a motion to convert Shu Kuan Li's application for conversion damages into an action and to have it heard together with a separate application by Goldentrust XE Inc. The court dismissed BNS's motion, finding it premature to convert the application to an action as no material facts were in dispute at this stage.

The court also determined that the balance of convenience did not favour hearing the two applications together, emphasizing the distinct nature of the claims and the potential for delay.

The applicant sought to overturn an arbitrator's decision assuming jurisdiction over a business dispute between co-tenants of a real estate development project.

The parties were deadlocked on whether the project should include a hotel component.

The arbitrator found he had jurisdiction under a broad arbitration clause.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the dispute was a non-legal business decision that did not arise under the agreement, as the agreement required unanimous decision-making and did not provide a standard of review for this type of dispute.

The court set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding he lacked jurisdiction.

The appellant, TELUS Communications Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision regarding the constitutional validity of the Wireless Services Agreement Act 2013 (WSAA) and a class action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the WSAA was within provincial legislative jurisdiction and was not rendered inoperative by paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's request to stay the class action for CRTC determination, confirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court awarded costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a class action.

The defendants sought $255,707.13, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs or $75,000, citing public interest and novel legal issues.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no public interest dimension as no losses were sustained and the defendant reacted responsibly to the cyber-hack.

The court also found the legal issues not novel, despite involving a cyber-attack, as similar incidents have led to numerous class actions.

Applying its established approach to costs in certification motions, the court adhered to the Grid rates for hourly fees, explicitly rejecting the defendants' argument for 60% of actual rates.

After considering a Grid-compliant outline of $176,459 and a 10% reduction for additional work attributed to the defendant, the court fixed an all-inclusive costs award of $160,000 to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal council's decision not to change the name of a private road named 'Swastika Trail'.

The applicants argued that the council unlawfully sub-delegated its decision-making power and fettered its discretion by relying on a vote held by a local cottagers' association.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the council retained its decision-making authority, considered multiple factors beyond the association's vote, and did not unlawfully sub-delegate or fetter its discretion.

The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of the council's decision under the Municipal Act, 2001.

An anonymous hacker stole personal information from Casino Rama's computer system, affecting customers, employees, and suppliers.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for negligence, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, and other privacy torts.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The court found that claims for breach of confidence and publicity given to private life were bound to fail.

While negligence, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion were deemed viable causes of action, the common issues requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was not satisfied.

The court determined that the proposed common issues required too much individual inquiry, particularly regarding the duty and standard of care, and the varying sensitivity of stolen information.

The class definition was also found to be overbroad, specifically including unionized employees whose claims fell under exclusive labour arbitration jurisdiction.

The applicant, a road paving contractor, sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decision to debar it from bidding on municipal contracts for four years.

The debarment was based on the applicant's ongoing litigation against the municipality, health and safety violations including a workplace fatality, and a history of poor contractual performance and abusive behaviour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that while the initial debarment decision lacked procedural fairness, the defect was cured by a subsequent bona fide reconsideration process.

The court further held that the municipality's by-law was valid and the debarment decision was reasonable.

The Toronto Star sought to quash or vary a production order issued under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, requiring it to produce the full videotaped interview of Matthiew Deiaco, parts of which had been published in articles on human trafficking.

The applicant argued the order was a fishing expedition and failed to balance state interests with media freedom.

The court dismissed the application, finding reasonable grounds for the order, noting the published excerpts suggested further inculpatory evidence and discrepancies with Deiaco's police statement, and that the media's constitutional protection does not import additional requirements beyond the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard, especially when information has been made public.

The applicant commenced a professional negligence action against his accountants.

He sought a confidential meeting with lawyers from Blakes, who had provided tax advice to him and the accountants jointly.

Blakes refused a private meeting, citing a duty of candour to the accountants.

The applicant brought an application to compel a confidential meeting.

The court noted jurisdictional concerns about enforcing Rules of Professional Conduct via an independent application.

The parties agreed to a compromise allowing non-party examinations of the Blakes lawyers.

The court ordered the examinations to proceed within the underlying action pursuant to Rule 31.10.