Dwayne Pyper

The plaintiff, Canada Forgings Inc. (CanForge), sued Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) alleging breach of a duty of fairness in a procurement process for nuclear reactor components.

CanForge claimed AECL unfairly favored a competitor, Patriot Forge Co., for end fitting forgings for the Bruce and Lepreau projects.

The court dismissed CanForge's claim on two primary grounds: first, it was statute-barred as the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was formally added to the Statement of Claim; second, no Contract A existed between CanForge and AECL, meaning no implied duty of fairness was owed to CanForge as a subcontractor.

The court also assessed damages hypothetically, finding no lost profits even if the claim had succeeded.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an advance interim payment of $22,000 for expert valuation costs, disclosure of various corporate financial documents, and an order for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the request for a section 30 assessment due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court ordered partial disclosure of the requested financial documents, limiting the scope based on proportionality and the burden on the respondent's business.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to pay an advance of $10,000 under Rule 24(12) to assist the applicant with expert valuation costs, finding the requested $22,000 excessive.

The parties separated and the central issue was the equalization of their jointly-owned physiotherapy clinic.

The application judge valued the business by averaging two competing expert figures and ordered the appellant to buy out the respondent's share.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under the Family Law Act, a judge cannot order a buyout of jointly-owned property without consent; the property must be sold.

The court also found the valuation method flawed and ordered the business listed for sale at the respondent's expert's valuation figure, with an accounting to follow.

The parties separated and sought equalization of net family property, primarily disputing the valuation of their jointly owned physiotherapy clinic partnership.

The applicant presented an expert business valuation, while the respondent disputed the valuation but did not provide her own expert report.

The court averaged the expert's valuation and the respondent's proposed valuation to determine the partnership's value.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant for his half of the partnership rather than ordering its sale, and resolved several minor financial adjustments between the parties.