David John Outerbridge

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The appellants purchased a new home and made claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for construction defects.

Tarion denied some claims, and the appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

During the appeal process, the appellants defaulted on their mortgage, and the home was sold under power of sale.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants lost standing to pursue the warranty claims when they ceased to own the home.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that the statutory warranty runs with the land and that the appellants' claim for damages for diminution in value constituted excluded secondary damage.

Aubrey Friedman brought a motion for interim relief to require Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to accept entries and nominations for his horses, after an expedited hearing could not be arranged as originally contemplated.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the delay in arranging the expedited hearing constituted a significant change in circumstances that should not prejudice Friedman.

The panel ordered that Friedman's entries must be accepted by all Ontario racetracks for Ontario sired events, provided they meet qualifying standards, pending the hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding their claims for water leak repairs under a statutory warranty.

The court previously dismissed the appeal but issued this supplementary endorsement to address remaining issues regarding the interpretation of settlement releases, a side letter, and estoppel.

The court held that the releases constituted the entire agreement and that the side letter did not bind the warranty program.

Furthermore, the appellants were estopped from relying on the side letter against the program because the program had reasonably relied on the releases to its detriment by relinquishing security.

The appeal on the remaining issues was dismissed with costs.

The Attorney General for Ontario moved for a stay of an order requiring the production of a videotaped police statement in a civil action, pending an application for leave to appeal.

The videotape was made by the plaintiff regarding sexual assault allegations against a former teacher of the defendant school, and had already been disclosed to the accused in the related criminal proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the Master's jurisdiction or the application of litigation privilege, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the parties in the civil action.

The appellant condominium corporations appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision disallowing their warranty claims against the Ontario New Home Warranty Program.

The appellants argued that under s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, statutory warranties continue in force despite any agreement to the contrary, rendering their previously executed releases with the builder unenforceable.

The Divisional Court distinguished prior case law, noting the releases were executed by sophisticated parties with legal advice to settle a known, properly filed warranty claim.

The Court held that the Act encourages settlements and does not bar parties from settling claims in exchange for a release.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached an exclusive supplier agreement and awarding the respondent nearly $5 million in lost profits.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to imply a term requiring customer consent, finding a breach regarding a specific contract, and excluding certain evidence on damages.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking an additional $1 million in damages, arguing the trial judge arbitrarily increased the calculation of incremental overhead expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and his legal conclusions were correct.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an initial order made under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act that authorized the debtor to obtain debtor-in-possession financing with superpriority over existing security.

The initial order was made without notice but included a comeback clause allowing interested parties to seek variations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as premature, holding that the moving party should first utilize the comeback clause to have their concerns heard by the supervising judge on a full record.