6 total
OEB's resolution of a cost-sharing dispute under its statutory complaint powers is subject to judicial review.
The appellant real estate developers sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regarding a cost-sharing dispute with an electricity distributor.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the OEB had merely provided an opinion and had not exercised a statutory power of decision.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the OEB's interpretation of the Distribution System Code to resolve the parties' complaint constituted a final, binding decision under its exclusive statutory jurisdiction.
As such, the decision was of a sufficiently public character to attract public law remedies, including certiorari, and constituted the exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.
Appeal allowed; OEB erred in finding a 1957 natural gas franchise agreement expired under the rule against perpetuities.
The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision that approved the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.
The OEB had found that the original 1957 franchise agreement expired by operation of the common law rule against perpetuities and ordered a renewal based on the OEB's Model Franchise Agreement.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the OEB had jurisdiction to decide the issue, it erred in law by finding the agreement expired.
The Court determined that the utility's rights under the 1957 agreement were vested, not future contingent interests, and therefore the rule against perpetuities did not apply.
OEB has jurisdiction to impose standard pipeline relocation cost-sharing terms despite the Drainage Act.
The appellant municipality appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) decision approving the renewal of a natural gas franchise agreement with the respondent utility.
The municipality objected to a standard cost-sharing provision for pipeline relocation, arguing it conflicted with section 26 of the Drainage Act, which would otherwise require the utility to pay 100% of relocation costs caused by drainage works.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB had broad, exclusive statutory authority under the Municipal Franchises Act to prescribe the terms of the franchise renewal in the public interest, and did not err in law or exceed its jurisdiction by imposing the standard cost-sharing terms.
Motion for leave to appeal granted with agreed costs of $5,000 awarded to the moving party.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2022.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the respondents to pay the moving party agreed costs of $5,000.
Foreign privacy laws do not require a 'layered approach' to redactions where Ontario discovery rules already filter for relevance.
In a certified class action regarding allegedly defective MINI Cooper vehicles, the defendants brought a motion seeking a declaration that the German defendant, BMW-AG, could produce documents using a 'layered approach' to comply with European and German privacy laws (GDPR).
This approach involved initially redacting all personal data.
The plaintiff opposed, arguing that Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure required unredacted production.
The court held that the relevance scrutiny inherent in the Rules of Civil Procedure satisfies the 'Legitimate Interests Exception' under the foreign privacy laws.
The court ordered BMW-AG to produce documents in accordance with a modified Rule 30.03, allowing redactions only for privileged information and personal data that is not relevant to any issue in the action.
Refusals motion dismissed as premature because the scope of documentary discovery had not yet been settled.
The plaintiff in a certified class action brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to questions refused during cross-examinations on the defendants' affidavits of documents.
The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the questions regarding the scope of documentary production, missing documents, and search terms were premature and irrelevant because the parties had not yet settled a discovery plan.
The court held that the scope of documentary discovery must be determined on the pending discovery plan motion before the adequacy of the affidavits of documents could be assessed.
