Clifton P. Prophet

The appellants, former employees of a bankrupt company, sought severance and termination pay from related companies under s. 4 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the companies were related, the relationship did not have the intent or effect of defeating the purpose of the Act, as the related companies had actually propped up the bankrupt company.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision as reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review is reasonableness and the Board's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The Registrar and customers of a bankrupt motor vehicle leasing company appealed the dismissal of their motion to vary a vesting order and for leave to sue the trustee in bankruptcy.

The vesting order had transferred the bankrupt's lease portfolio to assignees free and clear of customer claims for security deposits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' proprietary or economic rights were not directly affected by the order, as the contractual obligation to refund deposits remained with the bankrupt.

The court also held that a motion to vary under s. 187(5) of the BIA or Rule 37.14 cannot be used to substantively change an order or as a substitute for an appeal.

The corporate respondents sought costs of $32,950.29 on a partial indemnity basis following their success on an application for judicial review.

The applicants, represented by community legal clinics, argued no costs should be awarded as the application raised an issue of public interest regarding the related employer provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs, finding the applicants were individuals of limited means who brought the application in good faith to enforce protective legislation, and the case raised an issue of importance for other vulnerable employees.

Following the bankruptcy of Canada 3000, airport authorities sought to seize leased aircraft for unpaid charges.

The parties negotiated protocols allowing the release of the aircraft to the lessors in exchange for a Release Fund.

The Supreme Court of Canada later held that the authorities had a statutory right to detain the aircraft, which could be exercised against the substituted security.

The lessors appealed a motion judge's order allowing the authorities to draw on the Release Fund, arguing the preconditions of the protocols were not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the protocols were a voluntary commercial arrangement and the authorities' right to the fund was triggered by the judicial grant of the detention remedy.

Appeals and cross-appeals arising from the collapses of two airlines operating leased aircraft and leaving substantial unpaid airport and civil air navigation charges.

The Court held that legal titleholders were not personally liable for unpaid navigation charges under s. 55 of the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act because 'owner' was limited to persons with legal custody, control, or possession in the statutory context.

However, the seizure and detention remedies under s. 56 of that Act and s. 9 of the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act operated against aircraft owned or operated by the defaulting airlines and could not be defeated by leasing arrangements or by separating attached engines.

The remedies extended to security posted in substitution for the aircraft, subject to the motions judges’ supervisory discretion to craft fair terms.

Interest continued to run until payment, posting of security, or bankruptcy.

The respondents, having been largely successful on the main appeals concerning the interpretation of seizure and detention remedies under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, sought costs totaling over $631,000.

The court declined to award costs to any party.

The court reasoned that the proceedings raised novel issues of statutory interpretation that engaged the public interest, the respondents were not completely successful as their cross-appeals were dismissed, and the appellant airport authorities acted reasonably in bringing the appeals given the lack of established jurisprudential authority.

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed a decision regarding its liability to make contributions to employee pension plans.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the appellant conceded the appeal was moot.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal under the Borowski criteria and dismissed the appeal with costs.