3 total
Interpleader application dismissed as Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to resolve underlying foreign corporate governance dispute.
The applicant, an Ontario company operating a mine in Newfoundland, sought an interpleader order under Rule 43 to pay quarterly royalties into court.
The applicant faced conflicting demands regarding payment due to a corporate governance dispute over the parent company of the creditor, which was being litigated in the Cayman Islands and British Columbia.
The court dismissed the application, finding that Rule 43 is unavailable when the court lacks jurisdiction to determine the underlying dispute over corporate control.
However, the court granted interim relief allowing the applicant to pay the funds to the creditor's counsel in trust for 90 days to permit the commencement of interpleader proceedings in the appropriate forum.
The court declared that an iron ore offtake agreement was an arm's length contract, determining the applicable royalty calculation method.
The applicant, Tacora Resources Inc., brought a motion seeking declarations regarding the calculation of quarterly MFC Royalties payable under the Scully Mine Lease, specifically asserting that the arm's length Net Revenue calculation method (clause (j)(i)) applies to its sales to Cargill International Trading Pte Ltd. The respondent, 1128349 BC Ltd. (MFC), contended that Tacora and Cargill were not at arm's length, requiring the non-arm's length calculation method (clause (j)(ii)), and claimed significant underpayments.
The court granted Tacora's request, finding that the Cargill Offtake Agreement was an arm's length bona fide contract of sale, and therefore, the clause (j)(i) method for calculating Net Revenues was applicable.
The court dismissed 112 Ltd.'s claims for additional royalties.
Supreme Court abolishes maritime contributory negligence bar and denies recovery for contractual relational economic loss.
The plaintiffs sought damages for economic loss and property damage after a fire broke out on an oil drilling rig.
The fire was caused by arcing in a heat trace system that ignited inflammable Thermaclad wrap.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the manufacturer, Raychem, breached its duty to warn the rig owner of the product's inflammability and could not rely on the learned intermediary defence.
However, the builder, SJSL, was shielded from liability by an exclusion clause in its contract with the owner.
The Court declined to allow the rig's lessees to recover contractual relational economic loss due to policy concerns over indeterminate liability.
Finally, the Court abolished the common law maritime rule that contributory negligence acts as a complete bar to recovery, allowing the rig owner to recover 40% of its damages despite being 60% at fault.
