Eliot N. Kolers

Licensed pharmacists operating pharmacies within retail stores sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the retailer from selling or transferring pharmacy records to third‑party pharmacy operators following the closure of the stores.

The moving parties argued the records belonged to them under the license agreements and that privacy legislation governing personal health information prevented the transfer.

The court held that the agreements clearly provided that customer records belonged to the retailer, though it acknowledged a low‑threshold serious issue regarding the interaction of contractual terms with health‑information legislation.

The court found no irreparable harm because any business losses could be compensated in damages and patient privacy would not be breached under the statutory regime permitting transfer of records to a successor health information custodian.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the transfers to ensure continuity of patient care.

The motions for injunction were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the termination of her long-term disability benefits.

The respondent had previously commenced a civil action against the applicant regarding her entitlement to those same benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the civil litigation.

Finding that the issues in the two proceedings were virtually identical and that proceeding could lead to duplication, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the court proceeding.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge and finding the appeal had no merit.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The respondent, TeleZone Inc., brought an action for damages against the federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after its application for a telecommunications licence was rejected by Industry Canada.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, arguing that based on the Grenier principle, the claim was a collateral attack on the Minister's decision and that TeleZone had to first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, overruling Grenier.

The Court held that the Federal Courts Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act grant concurrent jurisdiction to provincial superior courts to hear damages claims against the federal Crown, and there is no requirement to first quash the underlying administrative decision via judicial review in the Federal Court.

The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction.

The plaintiff claimed $45,391.40 inclusive of GST and disbursements, while the defendants argued $25,000 was fair and reasonable.

The court noted that much of the work had already been prepared for the original injunction motion.

Applying Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $28,627.40, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The Special Committee of the Board of Directors of Patheon Inc. applied for relief under sections 104(1) and 127 of the Securities Act in connection with a take-over bid by JLL Patheon Holdings, LLC.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, provided that JLL complies with several conditions.

These conditions included terminating a voting agreement with the MOVA Group, certifying the absence of any other agreements regarding the offer, amending the offer circular to disclose the decision, issuing a news release, and extending the offer period.

The Special Committee of Patheon Inc. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for relief regarding an unsolicited take-over bid by JLL Patheon Holdings, LLC.

The Special Committee alleged that a voting agreement between JLL and a group of minority shareholders (the MOVA Group) violated the identical consideration and collateral benefit provisions of the Securities Act.

JLL proposed to terminate the voting agreement and extend the offer.

The Commission dismissed the Special Committee's application subject to conditions, including that JLL terminate the voting agreement, extend the offer for at least 15 days, and certify that no new agreement with the MOVA Group would be entered into for 120 days following the expiry of the offer.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and issued an order in accordance with the filed draft order.

Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.

Four appeals were heard consecutively to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims for damages against the federal Crown, or whether such claims must be brought in the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The Crown argued that the claims constituted collateral attacks on federal administrative decisions and required prior judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages in contract and tort against the Crown.

Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court only for prerogative remedies and declaratory relief, not for damages.

The plaintiffs' appeals were allowed and the Crown's appeals were dismissed.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Sterling Centrecorp Inc., applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act.

They sought to exclude the votes of certain shareholders who had signed support agreements from the 'majority of the minority' approval required for a going private transaction under OSC Rule 61-501, arguing these shareholders were 'joint actors' with the acquiring insiders.

The Commission found that one major shareholder, a former member of the acquisition group, was a joint actor and ordered his votes excluded.

However, the Commission concluded that the other supporting shareholders were not joint actors merely by virtue of signing the support agreements.

As the transaction still achieved the requisite majority of the minority approval even after excluding the joint actor's votes, the Commission declined to cease trade the transaction or require a new shareholder meeting.

Sunrise REIT initiated an auction process to sell its assets, requiring interested parties, including Ventas and HCPI, to sign confidentiality and standstill agreements.

Ventas submitted the winning bid, and Sunrise signed a purchase agreement containing a 'fiduciary out' clause allowing it to consider superior unsolicited proposals, but also requiring it to enforce existing standstill agreements.

HCPI subsequently submitted a higher bid.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's ruling that the purchase agreement obliged Sunrise to enforce HCPI's standstill agreement, thereby precluding Sunrise from considering HCPI's bid, as it was not a 'bona fide' proposal due to the breach of the standstill agreement.

The plaintiff sought to examine the Honourable John Manley, a Member of Parliament, for discovery in a civil action.

The motion judge ordered the Member to attend no sooner than 15 days after the commencement of Parliament's summer recess, finding that parliamentary privilege against testifying only applied while Parliament was actually sitting and for 14 days after adjournment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the privilege of testimonial immunity extends throughout a parliamentary session, as well as 40 days before a session begins and 40 days after it ends.

The court concluded that any changes to this privilege must be enacted by Parliament, not the courts.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an enforceable settlement agreement had been concluded between the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge was justified in finding an agreement was reached and that the terms, including a cash payment for shares, were clear and undisputed by the appellant at the time.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing an agreement.

The appellants conceded there was an agreement on all essential terms.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge reasonably and properly applied the evidence relating to the territorial ambit of the restrictive covenant to resolve the one outstanding issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following the release of the main judgment dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal issued an addendum to clarify the costs award.

The court upheld the motions judge's decision to award the individual defendants their costs against both plaintiffs, as the individual defendants had been improperly joined in the action.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing most of their claims against magazine publishers and a distributor for conspiracy to injure, conspiracy to unduly lessen competition, wrongful interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, and breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that there was some evidence of a common design or agreement among the corporate defendants to injure the appellants or unduly lessen competition, requiring a trial for the conspiracy and wrongful interference claims.

The appeal regarding the breach of contract and inducing breach of contract claims was dismissed, as the contract was terminated in accordance with its unambiguous terms.