Heather Kelly Pessione

A Teva employee fraudulently requisitioned and deposited 63 cheques into accounts under names matching or resembling real customers.

The majority held the collecting banks were liable in conversion because the payees were neither fictitious nor non-existing under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

The Court restored the motions judge’s decision and rejected the banks’ false-payee defence.

The Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that dismissed its motion to stay a portion of certain Superior Court orders pending its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no reviewable error in the single judge's application of the three-part test for a stay, including her conclusion that there was little likelihood of leave being granted and that irreparable harm was not established.

The appellant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation, appealed a decision regarding the calculation of amounts payable to the respondent non-utility generators under long-term power purchase agreements.

The dispute centered on whether a new government regulation reallocating the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GA) altered the calculation of Total Market Costs (TMC) under the agreements.

The application judge found that the new GA calculation was inconsistent with the definition of TMC, which required costs to be allocated pro rata to consumption.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not decide the case on an unargued issue, made no palpable and overriding factual errors, and properly interpreted the agreements without improperly implying a term.

An employee of the respondent perpetrated a large-scale fraud by requisitioning cheques payable to six entities and depositing them into accounts he controlled.

Two of the entities were invented, and four were customers not owed money.

The respondent sued the appellant banks for conversion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the banks' appeal, finding they had a valid defence under s. 20(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

The court held that the two invented payees were non-existing, and all six payees were fictitious because the respondent's directing minds never formed an intention to pay them.

Applicants under multiple long-term power purchase agreements sought declarations that the respondent miscalculated Total Market Cost after the 2011 global adjustment reallocation regime came into force.

The court held that the contractual definition of TMC implicitly required aggregated electricity costs to be allocated pro rata based on electricity consumption, and that the respondent's new formula improperly reflected a regulatory reallocation between customer classes rather than the underlying costs of generation and supply.

Although the court found the respondent breached the PPAs, it also held that neither the change of law clauses nor the material change provisions were triggered by the reallocation regulation.

Declaratory and consequential relief was granted requiring recalculation from January 1, 2011 and compensation with interest.

The appellant school board appealed an order requiring it to indemnify the respondent employee for legal costs incurred during a workplace investigation into alleged expense fraud.

The employee's contract contained an indemnity clause for costs related to any 'proceeding', excluding cases of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prima facie evidence of dishonesty was presented, the merits of the allegations were for arbitration, and the formal workplace investigation constituted a 'proceeding' under the broad wording of the contract.

The plaintiff railway company sought an ex-parte interim injunction to clear a blockade by unknown protesters on its Toronto to Montreal Main Line.

The blockade halted significant freight and passenger traffic, causing severe economic and operational disruptions.

Applying the R.J.R. MacDonald test, the court found a serious question to be tried regarding trespass, irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the plaintiff.

The court granted the interim injunction for ten days.

The appellant rented a hot water heater to the respondent.

The heater leaked, causing property damage.

The trial judge found the appellant liable based on an implied warranty of fitness, and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that section 9(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 applied retrospectively to the rental agreement, importing the implied warranty of fitness from section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act.

The court found the appellant breached this warranty because the water heater was not reasonably fit for its purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents suffered property damage when their rented hot water heater leaked.

They brought a subrogated claim in Small Claims Court and were awarded damages.

The appellant's appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's further appeal, relying on the reasons given in the companion case of Szilvasy v. Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership, which involved the application of s. 9(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to the rental of a hot water heater.

The representative plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the defendant bank for unpaid overtime, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence due to systemic policies requiring pre-approval for overtime and inadequate record-keeping.

The motion judge certified the action, and the Divisional Court upheld the certification.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the certification of most common issues and agreed that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, striking the common issue regarding the aggregate assessment of damages under s. 24(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, finding that damages could not reasonably be calculated without proof by individual class members.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a settlement agreement resolving complex litigation and related bankruptcy proceedings arising from the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

The dispute concerned ownership and recovery of investment fund assets held by the prime broker at the time of its insolvency, including securities subject to re-hypothecation and claims advanced in multiple jurisdictions.

The court considered the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement, including its impact on investors and the risks and delays associated with continued litigation and cross-border enforcement.

Relying on principles reflected in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the court’s jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act, the court concluded that the compromise was fair and reasonable.

The court approved the settlement and issued vesting orders in relation to assets conveyed under the agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against mutual fund managers for permitting market timing, which allegedly caused losses to long-term investors.

The defendants had previously entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding the same conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the OSC proceedings were the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the OSC proceedings were regulatory and lacked participatory rights for investors, and therefore did not fulfill the access to justice goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was deemed the preferable procedure.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to stay the respondents' action based on an exclusive forum selection clause in their agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the clause applied, the respondents had shown 'strong cause' not to enforce it.

The court noted the appellant's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue, its inconsistent positions, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts between Canada and the United States.

The appellant hospital appealed an order declaring that the respondent and other 'Annual Members' held their memberships for a full 12-month period and compelling the hospital to hold a requisitioned special meeting.

The hospital argued that under its by-laws, annual memberships expired on July 31 regardless of when they were approved, which in practice resulted in terms of only a few months.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the hospital's interpretation was unreasonable and unfair, and that 'annual' should be given its plain meaning of a full 12-month term to ensure members could effectively act as a check on the board of directors.