David D. Conklin

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to strike a portion of the respondent's amended claim seeking disgorgement of profits based on unjust enrichment.

The respondent, a generic drug manufacturer, argued it had an independent cause of action outside the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations due to the invalidity of the appellants' patent and alleged false representations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Patent Regulations constitute a complete code and leave no room for stand-alone equitable remedies like unjust enrichment in these circumstances.

The claim was struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing its unjust enrichment claim for disgorgement of the respondents' profits.

The appellant argued that if a settlement agreement between the parties was found unenforceable under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, it should be entitled to disgorgement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's deprivation could not exceed damages calculated under section 8, which do not include disgorgement.

Furthermore, the regulatory scheme provided a valid juristic reason for the respondents' profits, precluding the unjust enrichment claim.

Following earlier reasons dismissing most applicants’ requests for interim advancement of legal expenses from a corporation, the court addressed the costs of the applications.

The respondent corporation sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $559,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued that costs should remain in the cause of the underlying indemnity issue.

The court held that although the respondent was largely successful, payment of costs should be contingent on the outcome of the trial determining entitlement to indemnity.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs of $25,000 for a related motion and $165,000 for the applications, subject to specific allocations among applicants and exceptions for one successful applicant and another who withdrew participation.

The appellant former directors and officers of Look Communications Inc. sought advance funding for their legal costs to defend an action brought against them by the corporation for breach of fiduciary duty.

The corporation resisted the claims under s. 124(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, arguing the appellants had not acted in good faith.

The application judge refused advance funding, finding the corporation had established a strong prima facie case of bad faith regarding equity cancellation payments and legal retainers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that s. 124(4) applies to actions brought by the corporation and that the strong prima facie case standard is the appropriate test for denying advance funding.

The defendants, innovator pharmaceutical companies, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing in part their motion to strike the plaintiff generic drug company's claims for unjust enrichment and damages under the Trade-marks Act.

The court granted leave to appeal regarding the unjust enrichment claim, finding that a recent conflicting decision raised serious doubts about its correctness and that the issue was of general importance.

However, the court denied leave to appeal regarding the Trade-marks Act claim, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the motion judge's correctness.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentation sought leave to appeal a decision quashing their summonses to two Manulife employees and refusing to compel the defendants to file affidavits on the upcoming leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which followed established jurisprudence that defendants are not required to deliver affidavits or be subjected to cross-examination if they do not intend to lead evidence on the leave motion.

Former directors, officers, and consultants of Look Communications Inc. sought interim advancement of their legal fees to defend against an action brought by Look alleging breach of fiduciary duty regarding bonus and equity cancellation payments.

The court held that s. 124(4) of the CBCA applies to actions brought directly by the corporation, requiring court approval for advancement.

The court found Look established a strong prima facie case of mala fides against the directors and officers, rebutting the presumption of good faith.

Advancement was denied for all applicants except one employee, Dolgonos, whose entitlement arose under an indemnity agreement not subject to s. 124(4).

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act and to certify a class proceeding against the defendants for misrepresentation, conspiracy, and oppression.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fabricated a financial crisis by including a 'going concern' note in the company's financial statements to artificially depress the share price, allowing insiders to acquire shares cheaply.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial, as the financial disclosures were factual, required by GAAP, and made after reasonable investigation.

The court also refused to certify the conspiracy claim due to a lack of factual basis and struck the oppression claim, ruling that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an oppression remedy under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to pursue a class action against CIBC and its senior officers for alleged secondary market misrepresentations concerning CIBC's exposure to the U.S. residential mortgage market.

The court found that the plaintiffs met the test for leave and certification for the statutory claim.

However, applying the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Sharma v. Timminco Limited, the court held that the statutory claim was time-barred because leave was not obtained within the three-year limitation period under s. 138.14 of the Securities Act.

Consequently, both motions were dismissed.

The Minister of Health and Genpharm appealed a decision granting judicial review that quashed the extension of a cut-off date for generic drug submissions to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The application judge had found the process procedurally unfair and ordered a new cut-off date, resulting in all five competing generic drug companies having their products listed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals as moot, finding that the new Formulary had already been published, the legal landscape had changed, and Genpharm's proposed future action for damages did not justify hearing the appeal on the merits.