Emily Y. Fan

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $8.9 million, the plaintiff sought costs of $3.49 million based on a Rule 49.10 offer.

The defendant argued the offer was not a true compromise and challenged the proportionality of costs and specific disbursements.

The court found the Rule 49.10 offer was a genuine compromise, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court allowed disbursements for fact witness preparation and e-discovery, but disallowed fees for an expert who did not testify.

Costs were fixed at $2.8 million.

The plaintiff, Wiener Städtische Versicherung AG (VIG), a reinsurer, sought to recover funds from the defendant, Infrassure Ltd., a retrocessionaire, under a retrocession agreement.

VIG had paid its portion of a $140 million settlement to Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. (Zurich) for a business interruption claim by Vale (Canada) Limited.

Infrassure denied liability, arguing it was not contractually bound to follow the settlement and that Zurich failed to take proper and businesslike steps.

The court found that Infrassure was contractually bound by the "follow the settlements" clause and that Zurich had taken proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

Judgment was granted in favour of VIG for the settlement amount and loss adjustment costs, with the court denying VIG's claim for punitive damages.

DGAP Investments Ltd. sought a stay pending leave to appeal an order from the supervising judge in a CCAA proceeding.

The order authorized Stelco Inc. to acquire partnership units in a Land Vehicle, which DGAP argued would obstruct its prior agreement to purchase land from the Land Vehicle.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding that DGAP's case for leave to appeal was weak on the merits, there was no irreparable harm given the supervising judge's measures to protect DGAP's interests, and the balance of convenience favoured dismissing the stay to allow the CCAA proceeding to conclude and benefit aging stakeholders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the leave to appeal motion was expedited.

DGAP Investments Limited brought a motion seeking a declaration that provisions governing shared facilities and reciprocal easement agreements in a reconveyance agreement with Stelco Inc. had been complied with or were unnecessary, or alternatively, for court approval of its proposed easement agreement.

This dispute arose within the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving U.S. Steel Canada Inc. The court dismissed DGAP's motion, rejecting its interpretation that the Reconveyance Date had passed and that easement obligations no longer existed.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under section 11 of the CCAA to resolve such impasses to ensure the timely completion of the reconveyance.

While acknowledging an impasse, the court declined to impose DGAP's specific easement agreement due to an insufficiently developed record, instead ordering continued negotiations and a future case conference to schedule a motion for a judicial determination of the easement dispute.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) heard two motions within a long-standing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding concerning U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (now Stelco Inc.).

Stelco Inc. sought approval for a Securities Purchase Agreement (SPA) to acquire the remaining ownership interest in a Land Vehicle from various Stakeholders (employees, retirees, pensioners).

DGAP Investments Ltd., a defendant, brought a cross-motion seeking a strict timetable for the completion of a separate land sale agreement (DGAP Sale Agreement) before the SPA could close, alleging bad faith by Stelco.

The court granted Stelco's motion, finding the SPA beneficial to the Stakeholders by providing immediate monetization and extricating them from ongoing litigation.

DGAP's motion was dismissed, as the court found no evidence of bad faith by Stelco sufficient to delay the SPA, and determined that the SPA and DGAP Sale Agreement were not mutually exclusive.

The court emphasized continued judicial supervision and the Monitor's role in future transactions.

Stelco Inc. sought leave to appeal an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it to complete the severance and conveyance of a parcel of land (the "Reconveyance Parcel") to Legacy Lands Limited Partnership's nominee, in accordance with a 2018 reconveyance agreement.

Ernst & Young Inc., as court-appointed Monitor in the U.S. Steel Canada Inc. CCAA proceeding, and DGAP Investments Ltd., a purchaser of the land, opposed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Stelco's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in concluding the CCAA applied, and that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious nor did it raise issues of significance to insolvency practice.

The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to grant specific performance and his finding regarding waiver of MOECC consent.

The defendant in a reinsurance dispute brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to particularize policy exclusions it relied upon to dispute the quantum of a business interruption claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments amounted to the withdrawal of an admission under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant had always disputed quantum, the amendments merely clarified how quantum should be calculated, and no deliberate concession had been made that would trigger Rule 51.05.

The plaintiffs brought motions to compel the examination of a defendant on behalf of a corporate defendant and for further and better affidavits of documents from several defendants.

The parties agreed to dismiss the examination motion and portions of the production motion without prejudice.

The court ordered one defendant to produce certain financial documents relevant to personal enrichment and an itemized Schedule B list, but dismissed the remaining requests for further documents and better email descriptors, finding insufficient evidence of missing documents and that the current descriptors were proportionate.

This appeal concerned which party should bear the cost of interim preservation of vehicles in a damages action.

BMW claimed total loss of 2,966 vehicles due to Autoport's negligence and sought to dispose of them, while Autoport required their preservation for inspection.

The Master and Divisional Court ordered Autoport to bear the costs, but the Appeal Judge reversed, placing the burden on BMW.

The Court of Appeal found errors in the lower courts' application of Rule 45.01, emphasizing that the test for interim preservation of evidence should focus on trial fairness, not a rigid "balance of convenience" test.

The court concluded that BMW, as the party in possession of the evidence and with the information needed for Autoport's inspection, must bear the costs of preservation until it provides the necessary disclosure.

The Second Mortgagees (Janodee Investments Ltd. and Meadowshire Investments Ltd.) brought a motion seeking an order for 1482241 Ontario Limited to pay an over-holding fee of $63,900, as stipulated in a second mortgage agreement.

The fee was triggered because the mortgage was not repaid or renewed by its maturity date. 1482241 Ontario Limited, which had filed a notice of intention to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, argued that the fee constituted an interest penalty contrary to section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court, applying principles from Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. New Garage & Motor Co., found the over-holding fee to be an unenforceable penalty.

The court reasoned that the fee was arbitrary, not a genuine pre-estimate of damage, and would overcompensate the Second Mortgagees while depleting assets available to other creditors.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed.