Herbert Lorne Morphy

The applicants sought judicial review to avoid testifying before the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, which was dismissed.

The respondent Commissioner and intervenor City of Toronto sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the litigation raised an important constitutional question of public interest.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the applications were brought to avoid testifying, not in the public interest.

The Court awarded fixed costs of $25,000 to the Commissioner and $10,000 to the City of Toronto, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash summonses issued by the Commissioner of the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, arguing the inquiry had unconstitutionally evolved into a criminal investigation into specific individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding the inquiry's dominant purpose was to investigate municipal good government under section 100 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Commissioner was acting within her mandate by investigating potential misconduct as part of a broader fact-finding process, and that the incidental overlap with potential criminal matters did not render the inquiry ultra vires.

The respondent lost its major customer due to a bribery scheme orchestrated by a consultant hired by the appellant, a rival supplier.

The respondent sued the appellant, arguing it was vicariously liable for the consultant's tortious conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was not vicariously liable because the consultant was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on a holistic assessment of the relationship.

The Court also held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to reopen the trial to admit fresh evidence from the consultant.

The appellants, a lawyer and his law firm, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review.

They challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) to reprimand the lawyer for allegedly making misleading statements while representing a client.

The appellants argued that such conduct must be dealt with exclusively through quasi-criminal proceedings or by the Law Society.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Securities Act provides the OSC with a flexible range of remedial options, including administrative reprimands under s. 127.

The Court also affirmed that the OSC has jurisdiction to reprimand lawyers acting in their professional capacity, provided that solicitor-client privilege is respected.

The Continental Bank of Canada disposed of a partnership interest acquired from its subsidiary during a winding-up process.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the Bank, arguing the gain was income rather than a capital gain.

The Tax Court and Federal Court of Appeal held it was a capital gain.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding the transaction was capital in nature and not an adventure in the nature of trade.

The Court also refused to entertain the Crown's new alternative argument regarding recapture of capital cost allowance, as it was raised after the limitation period for reassessment had expired.

The appellant, a bank subsidiary, transferred its leasing assets to a partnership to utilize a tax rollover provision under s. 97(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Minister reassessed the appellant, arguing the partnership was invalid because the Bank Act prohibits banks from participating in partnerships, and the Partnerships Act dissolves partnerships engaged in unlawful business.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the partnership was valid.

The Bank Act prohibition applied to the parent bank, not the subsidiary, and did not render the partnership's business unlawful.

Furthermore, the Bank Act's saving provision prevents transactions from being invalidated solely due to a contravention of the Act.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal that affirmed an order granting mandamus to compel the Minister of National Health and Welfare to issue a notice of compliance respecting a generic version of a drug.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The appellant company closed its plant and terminated group insurance benefits for retired workers following the expiration of the collective agreement.

The union grieved the termination of benefits.

The company objected to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on the basis that the collective agreement had expired.

The arbitrator found the matter arbitrable.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the arbitrator's decision on jurisdiction must be correct, applying a pragmatic and functional approach.

The Court further held that retirement benefits can vest and survive the expiration of a collective agreement, allowing the grievance to proceed.

The appellant bank, owner of a commercial building, installed diesel-powered electrical generators for back-up power.

The appellant applied for a declaration that the generators were exempt from consumption or sales tax under the Excise Tax Act, arguing it was a manufacturer or producer of goods (electricity).

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant manufactured electricity when its generators were in operation and that the Act did not restrict the definition of manufacturing to exclude such operations.

The appellant sued the respondent on an instrument alleging it to be a promissory note.

The instrument included a promise to pay a principal amount 'with interest on the unpaid principal from the date of advance'.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the instrument was not a promissory note within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act because the 'date of advance' was not specified on the face of the document, making the amount of interest, and therefore the total sum payable, uncertain.

The appeal was dismissed.