Denise M. Cooney

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.

Following the dismissal of motions seeking an interlocutory voting injunction, an imaging order, and a contempt order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The unsuccessful moving party argued that most costs should be deferred to trial because the evidence overlapped with issues to be litigated on the merits.

The court rejected this submission, applying the principle that a successful defendant resisting interlocutory injunctive relief is generally entitled to costs payable forthwith.

After considering factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the high stakes of the motions, the absence of legal complexity, and certain conduct contributing to the contempt motion, the court fixed reduced partial indemnity costs for each successful defendant.

The moving party sought three forms of relief in a commercial dispute involving alleged misuse of confidential information: an interlocutory injunction preventing a shareholder from voting its 35% interest in a telecommunications company, an order authorizing forensic imaging and review of the defendants’ corporate servers and devices, and a finding of contempt for alleged breach of a prior consent order.

The court held that the requested voting injunction could not be granted because the moving party failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages under Rule 40.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a favourable balance of convenience.

The requested imaging order was refused because there was no evidence that the responding party had failed to comply with its document production obligations or attempted to conceal or destroy electronic evidence.

The contempt motion also failed because the alleged acts—deleting personal browsing history and installing software capable of secure deletion—did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that relevant information had been intentionally destroyed in breach of the consent order.

Investors in real estate development projects brought an oppression application under ss. 161 and 248 of the Business Corporations Act seeking, among other relief, the appointment of an inspector to investigate the use of investor funds.

The evidence showed project funds had been commingled in a separate entity rather than segregated as investors had been led to expect, financial disclosure was deficient, audited financial statements were unavailable, and a dividend was withheld from one preferred shareholder.

The court held that these circumstances raised a prima facie case that reasonable security holder expectations had been defeated and that oppressive conduct may have occurred.

The court ordered the appointment of a court‑appointed inspector and granted additional relief including payment of an unpaid dividend, redemption of preferred shares, and production of a shareholder list.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, developed severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) characterized by a fear of contamination from blood and bodily fluids.

After several incidents where his condition compromised officer and public safety, he was placed on medical leave.

Medical evidence indicated his prognosis for returning to front-line duties was poor and he faced a high risk of relapse.

The respondent informed the applicant of its intention to recommend termination of his probationary status due to an inability to accommodate his disability without undue hardship.

The applicant subsequently resigned his constable position and accepted a civilian role.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application, finding that the respondent satisfied both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate, as the applicant's condition posed a serious health and safety risk that could not be accommodated in a front-line policing role.

The plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking recovery of funds advanced under an agreement whereby the defendant undertook to source and manufacture commercial waffle machines in China.

The plaintiff paid over $50,000 but never received a viable prototype or manufactured units in accordance with the contractual specifications.

The court found the defendant’s explanations for the missing prototype and lack of documentation unsatisfactory and preferred the evidence of the plaintiff’s witness.

Applying the doctrine of total failure of consideration, the court held the plaintiff received no benefit under the agreement and was entitled to rescind and recover the advance payments within the Small Claims Court monetary limit.

Judgment was granted for $25,000 plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs.