Glenn A. Hainey

The plaintiff, a Crown corporation, sought to replace its commercial lending software and entered into an agreement with the defendants based on representations that the defendants had an existing, mature 'out of the box' software product.

The implementation failed, and the plaintiff discovered the software did not actually exist but was still in development.

The plaintiff terminated the agreement and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court found that the defendants knowingly made false representations about the existence and capabilities of their software, which induced the plaintiff to enter the agreement and waste 15 months.

The court awarded the plaintiff over $44 million in damages for incremental costs and lost economic benefits caused by the delay, and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for unpaid development charges.

Following the dismissal of Iran's motions to set aside default judgments and a Mareva injunction, the plaintiffs sought costs.

Iran argued it was immune from costs orders under the State Immunity Act and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

The court held that Iran was not immune from costs and awarded the plaintiffs costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the claimed amounts reasonable given the complexity and high stakes of the proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking indemnification from the defendants for a percentage of taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The parties had previously entered into a Share Put Agreement containing an indemnity clause.

The defendants argued they were protected by a prior representation and warranty regarding the future use of tax pools, and sought a set-off.

The court found that the plaintiff did not guarantee the future use of the tax pools against CRA reassessment, and that any such prior representations were superseded by an entire agreement clause.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, enforcing the indemnity, and declined to stay execution of the judgment pending the CRA appeal.

The plaintiffs moved to add Chevron Canada Capital Company (CCCC) as a party defendant to their action seeking to enforce an Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment was not legally tenable and disclosed no cause of action against CCCC, as the court had previously ruled that Chevron Canada's corporate veil could not be pierced.

Furthermore, the court found no basis for jurisdiction over CCCC, a Nova Scotia company with no assets or operations in Ontario, and noted that Rule 17.02(o) regarding necessary parties had been repealed.

The applicant, who had been found guilty of robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault, applied to re-open his trial and declare a mistrial.

The application was based on the Crown's late disclosure of an occurrence report detailing withdrawn drug charges from 2003 against a witness.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, as adapted in Kowall for re-opening a defence case.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence could have obtained the report with due diligence, the evidence was not relevant to a decisive issue, and it would not have affected the trial's outcome.

The Crown applied to have the respondent declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his convictions for multiple violent offences, including armed robbery and aggravated assault.

The court reviewed the respondent's extensive criminal record, which demonstrated a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving firearms and drugs.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the respondent posed a high risk of violent re-offending and had poor prospects for treatment, the court found the respondent met the dangerous offender criteria.

Concluding that no lesser measure could adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a US$9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation and its seventh-level indirect subsidiary, Chevron Canada Limited.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against Chevron Canada, arguing it was a separate legal entity not liable for the judgment.

The plaintiffs argued Chevron Canada's assets were exigible under the Execution Act or that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against Chevron Canada, finding the Execution Act does not override corporate separateness and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil absent allegations of wrongdoing by the subsidiary.

The plaintiffs also moved to strike Chevron's statement of defence.

The court struck defences relating to retroactive legislation and international law, but permitted defences alleging the Ecuadorian judgment was procured by fraud, bribery, and a denial of natural justice to proceed to trial.

The applicants sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and extending the stay period.

The Plan aimed to restructure the Pacific Group's indebtedness by approximately US $5.1 billion and maintain it as a going concern.

A Shareholder Consortium proposed an alternative recapitalization and refinancing proposal and requested an adjournment, which was opposed by the applicants and other stakeholders.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the alternative proposal a "last minute effort to de-rail" the restructuring.

The court sanctioned the Plan, finding strict compliance with CCAA requirements, good faith, and that the Plan was fair and reasonable, representing the best alternative available.

The court also approved third-party releases and granted a stay of proceedings for non-applicant parties, as well as extending the stay period.

The Cetero Group brought a motion seeking entitlement to a $298,243 tax refund (carry-back refund) held by PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PWC), as receiver of PRACS Institute Canada B.C. Ltd. The Cetero Group argued the refund was not validly assigned to PRACS, that PWC would be unjustly enriched, and that they were entitled to the refund through legal or equitable set-off due to PRACS's failure to pay under an operation support agreement.

The court found the carry-back refund was validly assigned to PRACS under an asset purchase agreement, providing a juristic reason for PWC's retention, thus defeating the unjust enrichment claim.

Furthermore, the court determined that neither legal nor equitable set-off applied, as the refund was not a debt owing by BA to PRACS, and the cross-claim for unpaid invoices was not sufficiently connected to the refund to warrant equitable set-off.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the appointment of an inspector under s. 161 of the Business Corporations Act to investigate two defendant companies.

The defendants opposed, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing as they were no longer shareholders.

The court found the plaintiffs had standing based on original share certificates.

The court granted the motion, holding that the companies' failure to provide financial statements prior to 2012 raised an index of suspicion of oppressive conduct, meeting the low evidentiary threshold for appointing an inspector.

The inspector's mandate was limited to issues not statute-barred.

The defendant, Allen Tak Yuen Chan, brought a motion to permit the liquidation and transfer of funds from Hong Kong bank accounts, frozen by a worldwide Mareva injunction, to pay for his legal fees and disbursements in defending the proceedings.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendant had other available funds and was engaged in fraudulent conduct.

The court applied the four-factor test from *Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley Institute of Business and Technology*, finding that the defendant had met the test for accessing non-proprietary assets to cover reasonable legal costs.

The motion was granted, subject to the Hong Kong Court's decision regarding its own non-dissipation order over the same funds.

Crystallex International Corporation applied for the recognition and enforcement of a US $1.202 billion international arbitration award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The award stemmed from Venezuela's expropriation of Crystallex's investment in a gold mining project, in breach of a bilateral investment treaty.

The court found that service on Venezuela was properly effected under the State Immunity Act and that Crystallex satisfied the requirements of Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law for recognition and enforcement.

No grounds for refusal under Article 36 were raised or found, as the dispute was arbitrable and enforcement consistent with Ontario public policy.

The court granted the order for recognition and enforcement, including pre and post-award interest, and awarded costs to Crystallex.

This case concerns the interpretation of a 1985 indemnity agreement granted by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes Forest Products Limited (now Resolute FP Canada Inc.) and its successors and assigns, regarding mercury contamination.

Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, a subsequent owner of the property, and Resolute sought indemnity from the Province for costs incurred complying with a 2011 environmental remediation order issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the indemnity's broad language covered statutory claims by provincial agencies and that the fettering doctrine did not apply to this business agreement.

Weyerhaeuser was also found to be able to rely on the indemnity as a successor or assignee.

This application sought the appointment of a receiver over the surface rights of the Kerr-Addison Mine, which had been inactive for 20 years.

The applicant, Gold Candle Ltd., had acquired the mining rights and aimed to recommence operations.

The respondents opposed, alleging the applicant was frustrating negotiations.

The court, exercising its discretion under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, balanced the parties' rights and considered the significant public interest factors, including health and safety hazards, severe local economic impact, unpaid municipal taxes, and unaddressed creditor claims.

Finding it just and convenient, the court granted the application, appointing A. Farber & Partners Inc. as receiver to conduct a court-supervised sale of the Mine, anticipating remediation, economic revitalization, and debt repayment.

This application sought a rectification order for a corporate amalgamation intended to achieve specific tax outcomes under the Income Tax Act's "tax bump rules." Due to an error, the amalgamation was performed in a single step instead of the required two steps, defeating the intended tax benefit.

The court applied the test for rectification, requiring proof of a continuing specific intention to undertake the transaction on a particular tax basis.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant had a continuing specific intention to utilize the tax bump rules, supported by various documents and witness testimony.

The application for rectification was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Disallowance issued by the trustee in bankruptcy of MF Global Canada Co. The appellant claimed the net positive balance of his futures account either on the day before the bankruptcy or on the date of bankruptcy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the decline in the account's value prior to bankruptcy was due to market forces, not a breach by the bankrupt.

Furthermore, the appellant had ignored margin calls exceeding his account balance, and the trustee was entitled to set off the appellant's debt against any amount owed.

The plaintiffs, victims of terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, sought to enforce U.S. judgments against Iran in Ontario under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA).

Iran brought motions to set aside or stay the default judgments and a Mareva injunction, arguing state and diplomatic immunity, limitation periods, and public policy.

The court dismissed Iran's motions, finding that the State Immunity Act and JVTA removed Iran's jurisdictional and enforcement immunity, the actions were not statute-barred, and the U.S. judgments met the criteria for recognition in Canada.

The court also granted summary judgment to the Bennett plaintiffs to enforce their U.S. judgment against Iran's non-diplomatic property in Ontario.

The applicant sought a declaration under the oppression remedy of the Business Corporations Act that he was the legal and beneficial owner of 20% of the shares in the respondent company.

The shares were previously owned by his deceased spouse, who died intestate.

The respondents refused to transfer the shares, alleging that the applicant and his deceased spouse had breached a trust agreement regarding a real estate transaction years earlier.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant was absolutely entitled to inherit the shares under the Succession Law Reform Act, and that the alleged breach of trust was both unrelated to the share entitlement and statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The moving party brought a motion to vary a prior judgment to permit a company to accept a new, higher offer to purchase a commercial property.

The parties had previously signed minutes of settlement agreeing to sell the property to a tenant based on a revived earlier offer.

The moving party argued the new offer constituted new facts discovered after the judgment under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The court dismissed the motion, finding the new offer was solicited before the settlement became binding and did not constitute new facts.

The court emphasized the finality principle and held the parties to their freely negotiated bargain.

The respondent brought a motion requiring the applicants to post security for costs and pay outstanding costs awards before proceeding with their application regarding a hotel development dispute.

The court found that the respondent was prima facie entitled to security for costs under Rule 56.01 and that the applicants failed to establish impecuniosity or a real possibility of success.

The court ordered the applicants to pay $22,748.74 in outstanding costs and post $50,000 in security for costs within 30 days, staying the application until compliance.