Craig Robin Colraine

The Ontario College of Pharmacists brought a motion for vulnerable witness accommodations for the complainant in a discipline hearing involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a pharmacist.

The College requested that the complainant be permitted to testify behind a physical screen so she would not have to see the registrant, while allowing the registrant to view her testimony via video transmission.

The registrant did not oppose the motion.

The Discipline Committee found that the complainant met the definition of a vulnerable witness under its Rules of Procedure and that the requested accommodations were necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the matter without prejudicing the registrant.

The motion was granted.

The Registrant brought a motion requesting that his upcoming discipline hearing be held in-person rather than by videoconference.

The College did not oppose the motion on the basis of efficiency, given the lengthy procedural history and the fact that the main witness would require an interpreter for extensive testimony.

The Discipline Committee found that while the Registrant did not meet the threshold of significant prejudice required to prohibit an electronic hearing, fairness and efficiency considerations warranted exercising its discretion to order an in-person hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Discipline Committee's decision dismissing his motion to stay a professional discipline charge on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that the eight-year delay in the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court applied the framework for inordinate delay and found that while the delay was lengthy, it was not inordinate when viewed contextually.

Significant portions of the delay were caused by the applicant's own motions or were inherent to ensuring a fair process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This decision concerns motions brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for interim relief in their restructuring proceedings.

The court addresses requests for approval of interim distributions, payment of direct costs, application of deferred payments for working capital, and approval of certain activities of the Monitor.

The court grants the requested relief, finding it necessary to maintain liquidity and continue the wind-down process, and holds that the proposed mechanisms are equitable and consistent with the CCAA’s remedial objectives.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicants sought court approval for the sale of a real property, the Monitor's reports, a revised governance protocol, and a sale and investor solicitation process (SISP) for their logistics business.

The court approved the property sale, finding it met the Soundair Principles despite not being a court-supervised process.

The Monitor's reports and activities were also approved.

The proposed SISP was approved with a minor amendment requiring the Monitor to consult directly affected secured creditors.

The Revised Governance Protocol, which included default commission rates for vehicle sales and collections, was approved as an interim measure, balancing the need for cost recovery with creditor concerns, noting that financiers could negotiate alternative rates or withhold consent to sales.

The appellant, Paccar Leasing Company Ltd., appealed a motion judge's order that Royal Bank of Canada's perfected security interest in a debtor's property prevailed over Paccar's unperfected security interest in leased commercial trucks.

Paccar argued that its "true lease" meant it retained title, giving it priority.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the 2007 amendments to the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) prioritize perfected security interests over common law notions of title, even for true leases, if the lessor fails to perfect their interest.

Parkdale Community Legal Services (PCLS) sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a motion for leave to appeal concerning an employment dispute and the enforceability of an arbitration clause under the Arbitration Act and Employment Standards Act.

The underlying appeal sought to clarify principles regarding contracting out of the ESA and the application of statutory bars to appeals.

Despite the consent of the appellant and no opposition from the respondent, the court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, emphasizing that granting intervener status at the leave to appeal stage is a rare and extraordinary event, and PCLS had not met the high onus of establishing their contribution was necessary at this preliminary stage.

The appellant employee appealed an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

He argued the arbitration clause was invalid because the employment agreement contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a decision to stay a proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The Receiver sought approval of its activities, fees, and a determination of priority over three leased trucks.

The dispute was between the senior lender, RBC, which held a perfected general security agreement, and Paccar, which leased the trucks to the debtor but failed to perfect its security interest.

Paccar argued that as a 'true' lessor, it retained ownership and was exempt from the enforcement provisions of the Personal Property Security Act.

The court held that the 2007 amendments to the PPSA brought true leases of more than one year into the registration system.

Because Paccar failed to perfect its interest, it was subordinate to RBC's perfected security interest.

The court ordered Paccar to return the truck in its possession to the Receiver.

The moving party employer sought to quash the responding party employee's appeal of an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

The employer argued the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The employee and an intervener argued the arbitration clause was void for contracting out of the Employment Standards Act, meaning the initial stay decision was made without jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the appeal was not completely devoid of merit and raised important questions of law regarding the intersection of the Arbitration Act and the Employment Standards Act.

Following a successful application maintaining the forfeiture of a $100,000 deposit, the applicant sought costs.

The applicant had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $95,000 plus partial indemnity costs.

Because the applicant obtained a more favourable judgment, the court applied Rule 49.10(1) and awarded partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $19,500 all-inclusive.

The applicants and respondent owned adjacent rowhouses.

The applicants' front veranda and a portion of their rear wall encroached onto the respondent's property.

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title by adverse possession, relying on statutory declarations from the respondent's predecessor in title acknowledging the encroachments and her exclusion from the land between 1975 and 1990.

The court found that the physical layout and the predecessor's acquiescence satisfied the test for adverse possession before the land was converted to the Land Titles system.

The applicants' claim was granted and the respondent's cross-application for removal of the structures was dismissed.

The applicant vendor sought an order that the respondent purchaser forfeited her $100,000 deposit after failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser argued for relief from forfeiture, claiming the vendor would receive an unconscionable windfall because he resold the property for $115,000 more than the original purchase price.

The court applied the two-part test for relief from forfeiture and found that the 7% deposit was not disproportionate to the purchase price, nor was the forfeiture unconscionable.

The court ordered the deposit released to the vendor.

The defendant former employer brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and breach of contract action pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the arbitration clause was invalid, the oppression claim was not arbitrable, and the defendant had delayed unduly by filing a statement of defence and counterclaim before raising the arbitration clause.

The court applied the five-part framework from Haas v. Gunasekaram and found that the dispute arguably fell within the broad arbitration clause.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments under s. 7(2), noting the defendant's counsel only discovered the arbitration clause during documentary discovery and raised it immediately.

The motion to stay the action was granted.

The applicant, a pharmacy manager, sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) confirming an Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) decision to caution him and require an educational program following a serious dispensing error by a pharmacist at his pharmacy.

The applicant argued the decisions were unreasonable and procedurally unfair, claiming he was improperly held responsible for another's mistake and denied procedural fairness regarding his discipline history and communication issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions reasonable and procedurally fair, noting the applicant's responsibility as designated manager for pharmacy policies and procedures.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting a stay of proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.

The motion judge had characterized the claim as one for oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act and found that Ontario was forum non conveniens because the core dispute involved shareholders' dissatisfaction with internal management decisions of a Quebec-based company.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred by misconstruing their claim as purely oppression and failing to recognize a common law claim for fraudulent misrepresentation with connections to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's characterization of the claim or his forum non conveniens analysis.

The Buyer (Mt.

Pleasant Roehampton Developments Limited) brought an application seeking a declaration that an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) was in full force and an order for specific performance.

The Vendor (Friedrich Christof Haussmann) brought a cross-application seeking a declaration that the APS was null and void and removal of a caution registered against title.

The central dispute concerned the interpretation of the "Investigation Period" deadline in the APS, with the Buyer arguing for March 31, 2017, and the Vendor for March 29, 2017.

The court found the plain wording of the APS established the deadline as March 29, 2017, and that the Buyer failed to waive conditions by that date, rendering the APS null and void.

The Buyer's alternative arguments of estoppel by convention and mutual mistake were rejected due to a lack of shared assumption or clear misrepresentation.