5 total
The court ordered post-commencement financial disclosure in an oppression action, rejecting a fixed valuation date.
The plaintiffs, former employees and shareholders, brought a motion for refusals and undertakings and leave to amend their Statement of Claim in an oppression action.
The defendants opposed the disclosure of documents related to company valuation post-commencement of the action, arguing the valuation date should be the action's start.
The court granted leave to amend and ruled that post-commencement valuation documents were relevant, citing judicial discretion in selecting the fairest valuation date in oppression cases.
The court also addressed procedural issues regarding questions arising from undertakings, prioritizing efficiency under Rule 1.04.
Regulator’s refusal to accredit the proposed law school was upheld as reasonable.
In an appeal from judicial review proceedings, the appellants challenged a law society decision refusing accreditation to a proposed law school because of a mandatory covenant restricting sexual intimacy to marriage between a man and a woman.
The majority held that the regulator had statutory authority to consider the covenant’s impact on equal access, diversity in the profession, and potential harm to LGBTQ prospective students.
Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the Court found the decision proportionately balanced freedom of religion with statutory public-interest objectives and was reasonable.
The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons and a dissent that would have allowed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that a 1906 agreement granting a perpetual right to cross a bridge for vehicle traffic includes modern motor vehicles.
The City of Thunder Bay appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that Canadian National Railway Company breached a 1906 agreement by refusing to reopen the James Street Swing Bridge for motor vehicle traffic following a 2013 fire.
The bridge is a combined railway and roadway structure.
The application judge found that the parties intended the bridge to be maintained only for the type of traffic existing in 1906 (streetcars, horses, and carts), not modern motor vehicles.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge's interpretation was unreasonable and tainted by extricable errors of law.
The court held that the perpetual right to cross the bridge for "vehicle traffic" and the obligation to maintain it "in perpetuity" must include modern motor vehicles, not merely those existing in 1906.
The court also found the application judge erred in placing the onus on Thunder Bay to provide specific proposals for making the bridge safe for vehicles, when that obligation rested with CN as the bridge operator.
The City's application to compel CN to structurally upgrade and reopen a century-old bridge to vehicular traffic under a perpetual maintenance agreement was dismissed due to vague proposals and lack of evidence.
The City of Thunder Bay applied for declaratory orders and specific performance to compel Canadian National Railway Company (CN) to reopen and perpetually maintain the James Street Swing Bridge for vehicular traffic.
The City argued that CN's perpetual maintenance obligation included upgrading the bridge to modern safety standards.
CN contended its obligation was limited to the original 1906 design and that reopening required significant structural reconfiguration beyond maintenance.
The Fort William First Nation supported the City's position.
The court dismissed the application, finding the City's proposals for reopening the bridge vague and lacking specificity, and that the evidence did not clearly define the required work or establish that such work fell within CN's contractual maintenance obligation.
Application for judicial review dismissed; Law Society's refusal to accredit TWU's law school was reasonable.
Trinity Western University (TWU) applied for judicial review of the Law Society of Upper Canada's decision to deny accreditation to its proposed law school.
The Law Society denied accreditation because TWU's community covenant, which prohibits sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage, was found to be discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Law Society's decision was reasonable.
The Court held that while the decision infringed TWU's freedom of religion, the Law Society proportionately balanced this right against its statutory mandate to protect the public interest and the equality rights of its future members.