Robert Chambers

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision granting the plaintiffs leave to pursue claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs alleged the corporate defendant misrepresented its equity market risk by failing to disclose its decision to abandon hedging and reinsurance of guaranteed products.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the plaintiffs had a reasonable possibility of success at trial and that the common law misrepresentation claims were suitable for certification alongside the statutory claims.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring an action against Manulife Financial Corporation and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of Manulife's risk management practices and failed to disclose its massive unhedged exposure to equity market risk prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial, and certified the action as a class proceeding, certifying seven common issues.

The applicant sought relief under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging that odour, noise, and flies from the respondent's adjacent turkey barns interfered with his use of his property for hunting and target practice.

The Board applied the common law test for nuisance to determine if the applicant was directly affected by a disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence that the farm was operated professionally and noting the applicant's limited use of his lands, the Board found the interference was not substantial or unreasonable enough to constitute an actionable nuisance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought relief under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 regarding noise and vibration from propane bird bangers used in the respondents' adjacent vineyard.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance and that the respondents' use of the bird bangers did not constitute a normal farm practice, as it failed to comply with established best management practices.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practices, including maintaining a 183-metre setback from the applicants' residences and restricting the hours and methods of operation.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' hog farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board complaining of excessive odour from the operation.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, relying on expert evidence and the operation's compliance with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, the Board concluded that the hog operation generally constituted a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered a modification to the respondents' practice, requiring them to incorporate liquid manure spread on tilled land into the soil within 48 hours to mitigate odour.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' hog farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, complaining of excessive odour.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the odour disturbance.

However, the Board concluded that the respondents' hog operation complied with Minimum Distance Separation requirements and was conducted in accordance with normal farm practices, with one exception.

The Board ordered the respondents to modify their practice by incorporating liquid manure spread on tilled land into the soil within 48 hours after spreading.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' horse farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding odour and smoke from the burning of horse manure, hay, and straw on the respondents' property.

The Board found that the applicants were directly affected by the disturbance.

Relying on expert evidence from agricultural engineers, the Board determined that the burning of manure and hay is not a normal farm practice.

The Board ordered the respondents to immediately cease burning hay, straw, or manure on their property.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance.

However, the Board determined that the respondents' operation complied with the Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines, based on the existing capacity of a prior beef feeder operation on the site.

The Board concluded that the respondents were carrying on a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.

The applicants, neighbours of the respondents' swine facility, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging a disturbance from odour.

The Board found that the applicants met the threshold test of being directly affected by a disturbance, shifting the onus to the respondents to prove their operation was a normal farm practice.

The central issue was whether the respondents' two hog barns complied with Minimum Distance Separation II (MDS II) guidelines.

The Board determined the existing capacity of the respondents' prior beef facility using the Hugh Fraser guidelines and found that both hog barns complied with MDS II.

The Board also noted that the respondents' operation was exemplary and utilized state-of-the-art technology.

The Board concluded the operation was a normal farm practice and dismissed the application.