Deborah Claire Templer

Seven spirits suppliers brought an application challenging the enforceability of section 14 of the LCBO's standard purchase order Terms and Conditions — a "most favoured customer" no-price-discrimination clause — after the LCBO assessed approximately $35.9 million in chargebacks by way of set-off for breaches of the provision.

The applicants raised multiple grounds: ultra vires, statutory illegality, restraint of trade, unenforceable penalty/unconscionable forfeiture, waiver, estoppel by convention, bad faith, and unjust enrichment.

The court rejected all grounds, holding that section 14 falls squarely within the LCBO's statutory mandate to buy and sell liquor as a wholesaler and retailer, is not prohibited by statute, does not restrain trade, is not an unenforceable penalty, was not waived, and was not the subject of a shared assumption with suppliers that it would not be enforced.

The application was dismissed.

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

The plaintiffs in a putative class action sought leave to discontinue the action under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with the defendants' consent.

The action alleged Bell Canada miscalculated a 1998 cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase for pensioners.

This issue was resolved through an "Action Plan" negotiated between Bell and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), resulting in approximately $84.2 million in retroactive payments to affected pensioners.

The court found the action moot and granted leave to discontinue, approving the proposed notice plan, as the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Registrar of the Ontario College of Teachers refusing to remove a 2014 finding of professional misconduct and reprimand from the public register.

The applicants argued that because the remedial course condition had been fulfilled, only the reprimand remained, entitling the teacher to its removal after three years under the College's by-laws.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the initial penalty imposed included both a reprimand and a course, meaning it was not 'limited to a reprimand' as required by the by-law for automatic removal.

The appellants' action was administratively dismissed for delay after their solicitors failed to receive a status notice sent to the wrong address.

The motion judge refused to set aside the dismissal, finding the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay or prove a lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the action, holding that the motion judge failed to give sufficient weight to the non-receipt of the status notice and erred in his assessment of prejudice by ignoring the respondent's own passivity in the litigation.

In a Commercial List costs decision following a summary judgment motion in a shot-gun buy/sell dispute, two defendants who had obtained dismissal of the action against them sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court rejected substantial indemnity because no offers to settle had been made and the allegations of conspiracy and misappropriation were peripheral to the core contractual dispute.

Applying Rule 57 and proportionality principles, the court reduced the claimed partial indemnity amount to reflect the moving parties’ subordinate role on the motion and to exclude fees of non-record corporate and estates solicitors.

The moving parties were awarded all-inclusive partial indemnity costs of $91,400 payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs moved to reinstate an action that had been dismissed following a status notice process under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the applicable reinstatement principles from Reid v. Dow Corning and the Faris test, including whether the delay was adequately explained and whether prejudice resulted.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to justify delay and failed to demonstrate absence of prejudice, particularly given the death of a key defendant whose evidence had not been preserved.

Settlement discussions and procedural missteps, including bringing the motion improperly and failing to advance the action, weighed against reinstatement.

The action against the remaining corporate defendant was dismissed with costs.

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.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action arising from a 2010 apartment building fire brought a motion for approval of a negotiated settlement and approval of class counsel’s fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement required the defendants to pay $5.5 million to resolve all claims by class members for property damage, personal injury, displacement, emotional distress, and related losses, together with $1.4 million toward legal fees and disbursements.

The court considered the established criteria for settlement approval in class proceedings, including the likelihood of success, the extent of discovery and investigation, the recommendation of experienced counsel, the absence of meaningful objections, and the arm’s‑length nature of the negotiations.

The court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees totaling $1,150,000 as reasonable given the litigation risks, complexity, and results achieved.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action arising from a shotgun buy-sell offer in a partnership dispute.

The plaintiffs claimed the offer was invalid, and alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and oppression.

The court found that the shotgun buy-sell offer was valid and complied with the partnership agreement.

The court also dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression, finding that the defendants were entitled to exercise their contractual rights.

However, the court directed a trial on three specific breach of contract issues relating to closing arrangements and the calculation of net earnings.

The appellant appealed an order recognizing a foreign default judgment, arguing that the English process denied him natural justice through the registration of the default judgment, refusal to set it aside, denial of an adjournment, and absence of reasons for a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had ample opportunity to be heard had he complied with the English rules of court, and that the denial of an adjournment was an exercise of judicial discretion.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought an order directing the Commissioner of the Cornwall Public Inquiry to state a case to the Divisional Court regarding whether the proposed evidence of two witnesses fell within the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.

The evidence concerned a sexual assault reported contemporaneously, which the applicants argued did not constitute 'historical abuse' under the mandate.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commissioner had not exceeded his jurisdiction and that the evidence was reasonably relevant to the Inquiry's mandate to examine the institutional response to allegations of abuse.

A dissenting opinion would have granted the application.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they made fraudulent misrepresentations inducing the respondents to purchase a restaurant business.

The trial judge ordered rescission, general damages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and punitive damages.

However, the Court reduced the general damages by $70,000 due to a lack of evidence for a management fee claim.

The Court also reduced the costs award, holding that awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the same conduct that justified punitive damages amounted to double compensation.