Gregory John Ringkamp

A reference to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada.

The majority (Tulloch C.J.O., Gillese, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.) answered affirmatively, finding that section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code permits Ontario to conduct and manage a lottery scheme with international pooled liquidity, provided Ontario continues to conduct and manage the Ontario-based aspects of the scheme in accordance with provincial law.

The majority rejected the application of the real and substantial connection test and distinguished the Earth Future decisions.

Van Rensburg J.A. dissented, arguing that the Proposed Model would contravene the Criminal Code because it would require Ontario to conduct and manage aspects of the lottery scheme outside Ontario's territorial boundaries, contrary to the plain meaning of "in that province" in section 207(1)(a).

The applicants sought court review of legal fees claimed by six lawyers (the Legal Team) who represented the Robinson Huron Treaty Litigation Fund in litigation to enforce the Crown's obligations under the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850.

The Legal Team claimed $510 million as a 5% contingent success fee on a $10 billion settlement.

The court found the Partial Contingency Fee Agreement was neither fair when signed nor reasonable at the time of hearing.

The court determined the Legal Team acted in conflict of interest when advising clients on their own fees and failed to ensure clients received independent legal advice.

The court assessed the fair and reasonable value of the Legal Team's services at approximately $40 million (double their billable fees of $23 million plus $6.5 million in disbursements already paid), rejecting the $510 million claim as champertous and disproportionate to the settlement amount.

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to adduce evidence and for a confidentiality order in the context of a reference regarding the legality of an online provincial lottery scheme permitting international play.

The court granted leave to the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Canadian Lottery Coalition Members to file their proposed evidence, finding it potentially helpful for the reference panel.

The court dismissed the Canadian Gaming Association's motion for a confidentiality order, ruling that alleged reputational harm was a private interest insufficient to override court openness, especially as the information was largely public.

This appeal concerns a share-purchase transaction under a unanimous shareholders' agreement (USA) that went awry.

The appellants, Leeder Automotive Inc. and 2786818 Ontario Inc., sought to compel the respondent, Douglas Warwick, to sell his shares.

The application judge dismissed their application, finding that Leeder had repudiated the share-purchase agreement by failing to comply with the USA's valuation provisions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's finding of repudiation, although it corrected her legal error by clarifying that the share-purchase transaction constituted a standalone contract capable of repudiation, rather than merely an implementation of the USA.

The Court found that Leeder's failures to obtain an independent real estate appraisal and to prepare financial statements in accordance with GAAP, including the improper exclusion of a significant settlement, amounted to fundamental breaches, justifying the respondent's acceptance of repudiation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Prospector PTE.

Ltd., sought recognition and enforcement of two foreign arbitral awards rendered by an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal in the United Kingdom against the respondent, CGX Energy Inc. CGX Energy Inc. opposed enforcement, arguing procedural unfairness because it was allegedly denied the opportunity to fully present its case regarding its counterclaim.

The court found that CGX Energy Inc. failed to meet the narrow test for procedural unfairness required to refuse enforcement under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The court also applied issue estoppel, noting that the same procedural unfairness argument had already been dismissed by the UK High Court.

The application for recognition and enforcement was granted.