Derek J. Bell

The receiver of Ravelston Corporation Limited obtained an order allowing it to attorn to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court and plead not guilty to criminal charges on behalf of the corporation.

A shareholder and creditor appealed the order, arguing it involved future rights under s. 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or alternatively sought leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding the order did not involve future rights but merely directed how present rights should be exercised.

The court also refused leave to appeal, concluding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the supervising judge made no error in principle in exercising his discretion.

The applicants, chartered accountants charged with professional misconduct, brought a motion for review of an order dismissing their request to compel the respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to file a record of proceedings under section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the committee's power to investigate and charge is not a 'statutory power of decision' as defined in the Act, and therefore section 10 does not apply.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his solicitor negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The appellant alleged that the lawyer's negligence in advising him and representing him at a bail hearing resulted in his 30-day detention.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no causal connection between the lawyer's actions and the detention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to expedite the hearing of the defendant's appeal from an order certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the appeal involved complex issues and that the proposed timeline was too short.

The court found that there were good grounds to expedite the appeal to prevent delay in the ongoing action and to address the vulnerability of the plaintiff franchisees.

The motion was granted, and the appeal was scheduled for the first available two-day period.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to enjoin the respondents from pursuing a motion in the United States to access testimony and documents obtained through the US discovery process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no comity concerns or overriding policy issues that would warrant an injunction.

The Court held that the respondents were legitimately attempting to gather evidence in a foreign jurisdiction according to its rules, and that the US judge was in the best position to determine whether and how to vary the protective order.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from seeking access to discovery evidence in parallel U.S. anti-trust litigation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were attempting to circumvent Ontario's discovery rules by obtaining discovery in the U.S. before certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiffs were merely seeking passive access to evidence already discovered in the U.S. litigation, rather than actively conducting discovery.

The court held that such evidence gathering does not offend Ontario's discovery rules or the implied undertaking rule, and that the U.S. court should determine whether to grant access under its own protective order.

The plaintiff attended a mandatory training program to become a licensed sales representative for the defendant.

After completing the program, she signed a contract containing an arbitration clause.

She later brought a proposed class action claiming the defendant failed to pay minimum wage during the training period under the Employment Standards Act.

The defendant moved to stay the action under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the stay, finding that the arbitration clause applied only to disputes arising from the relationship created by the contract, not the pre-contractual training relationship.

On a motion to quash an appeal, the moving party argued that a refusal to stay a class proceeding under the Arbitration Act, 1991 was unappealable under s. 7(6) and, in any event, interlocutory.

The court held that where the motions judge determined the arbitration agreement did not govern the dispute, the matter fell outside s. 7 and the statutory appeal bar did not apply.

The court further held that an order refusing a stay pending arbitration was final because it conclusively determined the forum and deprived the responding party of the substantive right to resolve the dispute by negotiation and arbitration.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.