Guy Dylan Bowers White

On remand from the Supreme Court of Canada following the Ledcor decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reconsidered its earlier dismissal of a class action appeal.

The appellant challenged Bell Mobility's seizure of prepaid credits, arguing that Bell's contractual terms and subsequent communications created an obligation to wait until after expiry before seizing funds.

The court affirmed its previous decision, holding that the expiry date was determined at the time of top-up purchase and reflected in the PIN receipts and phone cards, not in subsequent reminder messages or account page displays.

The court found that the appellant's real complaint concerned misrepresentation or promissory estoppel, neither of which were amenable to class proceeding resolution.

The appellant brought a class action alleging that Bell Mobility improperly collected unused funds from prepaid wireless accounts when customers failed to top up before the end of the active period.

The appellant argued that Bell breached its contract by claiming funds on the first day after the active period ended, and alternatively, that the Gift Card Regulation under the Consumer Protection Act prohibited expiry dates on prepaid phone cards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the contract clearly stipulated expiration at the end of the active period.

The Court also held that the Gift Card Regulation prohibits expiry dates on the future performance of an agreement, not on the duration of the service itself, meaning Bell fully performed its obligation by providing access to its network for the agreed-upon period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, acting as receiver for Wesbell Networks Inc., appealed a trial decision allowing Bell Canada to set-off approximately $2 million against amounts owed to Wesbell under a Master Supply Agreement.

Following Wesbell's bankruptcy, Bell terminated the agreement, assumed an equipment lease, and paid the remaining lease balance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the agreement, confirming Bell's right to set-off the full amount.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding trial costs, finding the trial judge erred in denying costs to the appellant despite its overall success in obtaining a judgment exceeding $1 million.

The appellant was awarded $94,000 in trial costs, while the respondent was awarded $20,000 for the appeal.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta involving a truck owned and operated by the Alberta respondents.

She sued the respondents in Ontario, along with her Ontario automobile insurer for uninsured/underinsured coverage.

The respondents successfully moved to stay the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellant argued her insurance contract was a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurance contract had no nexus to the respondents and could not bootstrap jurisdiction over them.

Following a trial decision permitting the defendant to set off amounts paid to assume a lease, the parties could not agree on the calculation of the judgment.

The plaintiff argued the set-off should be calculated on a declining balance basis and exclude tax input credits.

The court held the defendant was entitled to set off the entire lease obligation immediately, as it relieved the plaintiff of the full liability.

The court also rejected the tax argument, finding it was an improper attempt to introduce fresh evidence after trial.

The plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents from the defendant SNC, including a Negotiated Resolution Agreement between SNC and the World Bank regarding bribery allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The court held that the World Bank's sanctions procedures constituted 'litigation' for the purposes of the privilege, that the communications were intended to be confidential, and that their purpose was to effect a settlement.

The court declined to create a public policy exception to the privilege and found no waiver of the privilege by SNC.

Following a contract interpretation decision in which each party succeeded on different issues, the court considered submissions on costs.

The plaintiff succeeded on the issue of entitlement to the contractual interest rate, while the defendant succeeded on the issue of contractual setoff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $94,000.

Applying principles governing divided success and referencing commentary from the Law of Costs, the court concluded that the parties were either equally successful or equally unsuccessful.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).

The central issue was the identification of the driver of the silver Chrysler 300 on August 8, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence.

The defence argued that the actual driver was Jesse Dozois, not the accused.

The court found the accused guilty of the section 253(1)(b) charge and stayed the section 253(1)(a) charge pursuant to Kienapple.