Harry R. Burkman

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to add a corporate entity as a defendant in a wrongful dismissal action.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing that the applicable two-year limitation period had expired and that the revocation of Ontario Regulation 73/20 rescinded the COVID-19 limitation period suspension.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the limitation period was suspended from March 16, 2020, to September 14, 2020, and had not yet expired.

The motion to add the defendant was granted.

The appellant appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 20 residential units.

A settlement was reached between the appellant, the Town, the County, and a condominium corporation, but was opposed by a local residents' group.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal rejected a late request by the Town to impose a condition requiring the developer to provide six affordable housing units, finding it unreasonable and inequitable in the absence of supporting Official Plan policies.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make decisions on a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The parties presented a refined Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order, including a contested provision regarding potential costs awards for failing to call evidence on listed issues, and scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.

The applicants sought to vary management cease trade orders (MCTOs) under section 144 of the Securities Act to permit trading in connection with a proposed going private transaction by Hollinger Inc. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that varying the MCTOs would not be prejudicial to the public interest.

The Commission cited concerns regarding the lack of current audited financial statements, the adequacy of the independent valuation, the potential conflicts of interest in the proposed litigation trust, and evidence of undue influence exerted by related parties on the independent committee and valuator.

The applications were denied.