Craig T. Lockwood

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that a reporting issuer and seven of its former officers and directors contravened Ontario securities law by making materially misleading disclosures regarding copper production and financial performance, failing to maintain adequate internal controls, and providing inadequate risk disclosure.

The respondents admitted to the contraventions and to conduct contrary to the public interest.

The Commission approved a settlement agreement requiring the corporate respondent to make a $28.5 million voluntary payment and pay $1.5 million in costs, while the individual respondents agreed to pay administrative penalties ranging from $350,000 to $2.45 million, pay $50,000 each in costs, and be subject to director and officer bans.

The Commission found the settlement fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

In this costs decision following an urgent injunction motion and a successful application, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs for both proceedings.

The court held that costs followed the event and accepted that the moving party was substantially successful on the injunction motion and entirely successful on the application.

Applying the proportionality and fairness principles under rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reduced the amounts claimed as excessive, particularly in light of duplication in the later application materials.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 for the injunction motion and $10,000 for the application, for a total award of $25,000.

The applicant, a non-share capital corporation, sought a declaration that a resolution proposed by its voting members to remove certain directors and amend its by-laws was unlawful.

The voting members had requisitioned a special meeting to pass the resolution following a governance review that alleged the directors were in a conflict of interest.

The court granted the application, finding that under the Corporations Act and the applicant's by-laws, the voting members did not have the authority to unilaterally amend the by-laws or reduce the number of directors.

Furthermore, the resolution to remove the directors failed to comply with the procedural fairness and conflict of interest provisions set out in the by-laws.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

In a health care cost recovery action brought by the Crown against tobacco companies under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009, a defendant moved to strike portions of the statement of claim referencing alleged misrepresentations made by tobacco companies before parliamentary committees.

The court considered whether statements made to House of Commons and legislative committees could be relied upon in a civil action.

It held that parliamentary privilege, specifically freedom of speech, protects statements made during parliamentary proceedings and committee appearances, including by non‑members who participate as witnesses.

Because the privilege is absolute and prevents courts from questioning such statements, the impugned pleadings referencing those presentations could not stand.

The motion to strike those paragraphs was therefore granted.

Pharmacy and retailer appellants challenged provincial regulations that barred private-label generic drugs from formulary listing and interchangeable designation.

The Court reaffirmed that delegated legislation is presumed valid and is ultra vires only if inconsistent with statutory purpose or outside delegated authority.

It held the regulations aligned with the legislative scheme aimed at reducing prescription drug costs and promoting transparent pricing while maintaining safety.

The measures were rationally connected to preventing circumvention of rebate and allowance restrictions through affiliated manufacturers.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart and Katz Group, successfully challenged provincial regulations banning pharmacies from selling private label generic drugs at the Divisional Court.

The Minister of Health appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the regulations were intra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court held that the regulations validly imposed conditions on the drug supply chain to control prescription drug costs, rather than constituting an unauthorized prohibition, interference with commercial rights, or illegal discrimination.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Katz Group Canada Inc., sought costs after being wholly successful in their judicial review applications against the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The respondents argued the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The Divisional Court rejected the duplication argument, noting the complexity and importance of the first-instance proceeding.

The court awarded Katz Group its full claimed costs, but reduced Shoppers Drug Mart's fee claim from $104,354 to $80,000 due to excessive hours and duplication among its legal team.

The applicants, who own and operate pharmacies in Ontario, challenged the validity of provincial regulations that prohibited 'private label' generic drugs from being designated as interchangeable or listed for public reimbursement.

The Divisional Court held that the regulations were ultra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court found that the enabling statutes authorized the imposition of conditions, not absolute prohibitions, and that the ban on private label products was extraneous to the legislative purpose of controlling drug costs.

The regulations were declared invalid and of no force and effect.

The employer sold a division of its business, resulting in the transfer of employees to a new company.

The transferred employees were removed from the employer's defined benefit pension plan and incorporated into a new successor plan.

At the time of the transfer, the employer's pension plan had a significant projected actuarial surplus.

The employer transferred enough funds to cover the transferred employees' defined benefits but did not transfer any surplus funds.

The transferred employees argued the employer breached its fiduciary duty of even-handedness by not transferring a portion of the surplus and by improperly charging plan administration expenses to the fund.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the pension plan documentation allowed the employer to charge administration expenses to the fund and that the transferred employees had no equitable interest in the actuarial surplus, meaning the employer's obligations were satisfied by assuring their defined benefits.

The corporation sought an order approving a proposed arrangement to collapse its dual-class share structure by purchasing for cancellation all outstanding Class B shares for consideration comprising 9 million newly issued Class A shares and US$300 million in cash.

The application judge approved the arrangement.

The opposing shareholders appealed, arguing the application judge erred in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly applied the BCE test.

The corporation was not required to demonstrate with certainty that the benefits of the arrangement would offset the costs, but only a reasonable prospect of clearly identified benefits.

The affirmative vote of the Class A shareholders was important evidence supporting the fairness of the arrangement.

The applicants, minority shareholders of MI Developments Inc. (MID), brought applications under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act alleging that MID failed to comply with Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (MI 61-101) by not obtaining minority shareholder approval for a series of related party transactions with Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC).

The transactions included loans, loan extensions, and debtor-in-possession financing.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the applications, finding that section 104 does not apply to related party transactions.

While the Commission permitted the applications under section 127, it concluded that MID was entitled to rely on the downstream transaction exception and the market capitalization exemption under MI 61-101.

The Commission also found no prima facie case of insider trading in connection with a related trust transaction.

During a hearing to review a decision of the Toronto Stock Exchange regarding HudBay Minerals Inc.'s proposed acquisition of Lundin Mining Corporation, HudBay and Lundin requested confidentiality orders for certain documents filed in evidence.

The Ontario Securities Commission considered the open court principle and the test for confidentiality under section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Sierra Club.

The Commission granted confidentiality for documents that were not relevant to its decision on the merits, including handwritten notes and a financial presentation.

However, it ordered that relevant documents, such as special committee minutes and an engagement letter, be made public, subject to minor redactions for third-party sensitive information.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting the respondent an enhanced supplementary pension based on an additional 36 months of service.

The trial judge found that the parties had a prior oral agreement regarding the pension credit and were mutually mistaken in believing the written letter agreement reflected this intention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to rectify the agreement, finding that the appellants' attempt to take advantage of the mistake amounted to unfair dealing.

The Court also agreed that promissory estoppel prevented the appellants from denying the pension entitlement.

Following a successful appeal by the defendant employer regarding a pension plan surplus dispute, the parties made submissions on costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the litigation was aimed at ensuring the proper administration of the pension trust fund and would have benefited all transferred employees had the plaintiffs been successful.

Consequently, the court ordered that the costs of both parties for the appeal and cross-appeal be paid from the pension fund on a full indemnity basis.

The court fixed the employer's costs at $140,000 and the representative plaintiffs' costs at $43,000, and referred the determination of the reasonableness of the trial costs to the trial judge.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to certify a class action against them regarding the manufacture and distribution of the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence and claimed restitutionary relief based on waiver of tort.

The defendants argued that proof of the amount of wrongful gain could not be a common issue and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that given the uncertain state of the law regarding waiver of tort, a full evidentiary record was necessary, and the motion judge did not err in certifying the common issues or finding a class action to be the preferable procedure.

The Hudson's Bay Company sold a division, transferring employees to a successor employer who established a new pension plan.

The transferred employees sought a pro rata share of the actuarial surplus from the original pension plan and challenged the employer's payment of plan expenses from the pension fund.

The Court of Appeal held that under the plan documentation, the transferred employees had no entitlement to the surplus, and thus the employer did not breach any trust by not transferring it.

Furthermore, the court found that the employer was legally entitled to pay plan administration and fund management expenses from the pension fund based on valid amendments to the trust agreements.