Connor Francis Campbell

Seven spirits suppliers brought an application challenging the enforceability of section 14 of the LCBO's standard purchase order Terms and Conditions — a "most favoured customer" no-price-discrimination clause — after the LCBO assessed approximately $35.9 million in chargebacks by way of set-off for breaches of the provision.

The applicants raised multiple grounds: ultra vires, statutory illegality, restraint of trade, unenforceable penalty/unconscionable forfeiture, waiver, estoppel by convention, bad faith, and unjust enrichment.

The court rejected all grounds, holding that section 14 falls squarely within the LCBO's statutory mandate to buy and sell liquor as a wholesaler and retailer, is not prohibited by statute, does not restrain trade, is not an unenforceable penalty, was not waived, and was not the subject of a shared assumption with suppliers that it would not be enforced.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from an associate judge's reasons on a construction lien reference, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction under s. 71 of the Construction Lien Act.

After the respondents filed their motion materials, the appellant abandoned the appeal.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, noting they had warned the appellant of the jurisdictional issue and offered to settle on a no-costs basis if the appeal was discontinued.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondents' warnings were misleading and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $7,500.

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's fees related to pension indexing benefits for members of the Brewer’s Retail, Inc. Pension Plan.

The dispute revolved around whether indexing constituted a protected pension benefit under the Pension Benefits Act.

The settlement provides for a 0.9% annual adjustment to pension benefits for pre-2010 service, with a specific fund allocated for certain class members requiring a claims process.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the result of arm's-length negotiations and avoided the "all or nothing" risk of litigation.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved as fair and reasonable, representing a significant reduction from their dockets and a modest percentage of the total settlement value.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against Smith & Wesson for design negligence following the Danforth Shooting, where a stolen M&P®40 handgun without "authorized user" (smart gun) technology was used to kill and injure multiple people.

The plaintiffs argued that Smith & Wesson was negligent in failing to incorporate authorized user technology into the handgun's design.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

Specifically, the plaintiffs did not provide expert evidence from a firearm design expert to establish some basis in fact that the absence of authorized user technology constituted a design defect, or that an alternative design was feasible without impairing the handgun's utility for its intended military and police users.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay or dismiss the claim of one of the plaintiffs, who resided in Quebec, arguing that Quebec was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The plaintiffs, who were all Vice-Presidents of Business Development, brought an action in Ontario for unpaid vacation pay.

Applying the Van Breda factors, the court found that the majority of key witnesses were in Ontario and that separating the Quebec plaintiff's claim would create a risk of multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The motion was dismissed, as the defendant failed to show that Quebec was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The proposed intervener, a shareholder of the respondent corporation and leader of an investor group, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an application concerning the extension of an outside date for a recapitalization transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener's financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a direct interest in the subject matter of the private commercial dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed intervener's intended evidence regarding foreign regulatory law would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of the proceeding.