David Moore

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding a former executive unpaid vacation pay, deferred bonuses, and the value of lost stock options.

The employer argued the motion judge erred in granting the relief, in finding that issue estoppel barred its just cause defence, and in determining the matter via summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence or his conclusion that the just cause defence was barred by issue estoppel following the earlier dismissal of the employer's counterclaim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The Crown moved to strike out the plaintiff's Second Amended Claim for misfeasance in public office under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged the Crown unlawfully directed Infrastructure Ontario to exclude it from participating in the financing of a public tendering project.

The court found that the Crown was entitled to make decisions adverse to the plaintiff's interests in a public tendering process, and the pleadings did not plausibly support a conclusion that the Crown acted for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

The claim was struck out without leave to amend.

The court also held that, alternatively, the plaintiff would have required leave to proceed under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The plaintiffs sought to schedule a case conference for an assessment of damages.

The defendant was incarcerated in British Columbia and had been unreachable for several months.

The court issued a direction scheduling a telephone case conference, requesting the cooperation of the correctional institution to facilitate the defendant's participation, and noting that the conference would proceed whether the defendant participated or not.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an oppression application commenced by a significant noteholder under a corporate debt indenture.

They argued that a “no action” clause in the indenture barred the proceeding unless procedural preconditions were satisfied, including notice to the trustee and trustee enforcement.

The court held that although no‑action clauses are often interpreted broadly, their scope depends on the wording of the indenture and the trustee’s contractual powers.

Because the trustee’s enforcement authority under the indenture was limited to pursuing payment defaults, it did not extend to bringing oppression proceedings.

The applicant’s oppression claim was therefore not captured by the clause and the motion to stay was dismissed.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.