Herman J. Wilton-Siegel

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), brought a motion seeking approval of a claims process for the identification and determination of intellectual property claims asserted by United States Steel Corporation (USS) against USSC within ongoing CCAA proceedings.

USSC argued the process was necessary to provide clarity for potential purchasers in its Sales and Investment Process (SISP) and facilitate a going concern bid.

USS opposed, arguing the process was impractical and burdensome.

The court granted the motion, subject to certain excisions from the claim form, finding the process beneficial for the restructuring and for maximizing recoveries for stakeholders, and that it had the authority under section 11 of the CCAA to do so.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to July 28, 2016.

United States Steel Corporation (USS) opposed, seeking a shorter extension and the imposition of conditions for disclosure of Phase II bids and an updated liquidation analysis.

The court granted the extension as requested by the applicant, finding that the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a longer stay furthered the prospect of a successful restructuring.

The court denied USS's requests for a shorter extension and conditions, deeming them premature and potentially detrimental to the restructuring process, and found insufficient evidence of value destruction.

The applicants (Representative Counsel for non-unionized employees and retirees, USW Locals 1005 and 8782, and the City of Hamilton) sought "for counsel's eyes only" disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement between United States Steel Corporation (USS), U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), and the Government of Canada.

The motion was brought in the context of CCAA proceedings, with applicants arguing procedural fairness and a minor exemption from settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced without access to the specific details of the undertakings in the agreement, or how the information was material to their claims or negotiations.

The court emphasized that there is no exemption from settlement privilege for the purpose of reviewing a document to determine if a public interest exists that would displace the privilege.

The landlord and tenant, who are siblings, entered into a residential tenancy agreement that granted the tenant the right to occupy the basement for her lifetime.

The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy for his daughter's use.

The Landlord and Tenant Board granted the application, finding the life tenancy provision illogical and contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Court held that the parties clearly intended a life tenancy, and such an agreement does not violate the Act, as the landlord's statutory termination rights can still be exercised upon the tenant's death.

The appeal was allowed.

The applicant, a tenant of the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC), sought judicial review of a decision removing his rent-geared-to-income subsidy.

The subsidy was removed after the applicant failed to provide requested corporate financial information and bank statements for his legal professional corporation.

The applicant argued that the TCHC breached procedural fairness and failed to accommodate his disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the TCHC provided ample opportunity to comply, the process was fair, and there was no evidence that the applicant's disabilities prevented him from providing the required documentation.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 (the "Union") brought a motion seeking to lift a stay of proceedings imposed by a receivership order.

The Union intended to proceed with a certification application and a related unfair labour practice complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) against Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited (the "Debtor") and its court-appointed receiver, Rosen Goldberg Inc. The court denied the motion, finding that the certification application was a nullity as it was commenced without prior leave of the court, in contravention of the receivership order.

Consequently, the unfair labour practice complaint, being dependent on the validity of the certification application, also lacked a prima facie basis.

The court emphasized that allowing the certification would create new rights for employees, contrary to the purpose of a stay in receivership, and could diminish the proceeds from the sale of the Debtor's assets.

The applicant and respondent are brothers who were involved in a website business directed toward immigrants from mainland China.

The applicant claimed that the business was operated as a partnership in which he held a 40% interest, or alternatively, that he was a 40% shareholder in the corporations owning the business, and sought dissolution or an oppression remedy.

The respondent cross-applied, seeking a declaration that he owned 85% of the shares and an order requiring the applicant to sell his 15% shareholding due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and oppression.

The court found that the applicant was an independent contractor, not a partner or employee, and dismissed his claims for partnership dissolution, wrongful dismissal, and oppression.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-application for a forced buyout of the applicant's shares, finding no breach of fiduciary duty or oppression by the applicant in his capacity as a director.

Both the application and cross-application were largely dismissed, save for some specific monetary accounting.

The moving party and respondent entered into a joint venture to develop condominiums.

After the moving party's family assets were frozen, he transferred his shares in the project companies to the respondent to allow the respondent to secure financing, executing a document styled as a 'trust agreement'.

The moving party later brought a motion seeking the return of the shares, arguing the agreement created a bare trust that could be collapsed under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the document was a contractual agreement rather than a trust, and that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier would not apply regardless because the moving party did not have absolute beneficial ownership of the shares.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent was responsible for funding a deficit that arose on the wind-up of a pension plan for employees at certain warehouses.

The warehouses were previously operated by the applicant's predecessor under a warehousing and transportation agreement with the respondent's predecessor.

The court found that the respondent was contractually liable under the agreement to reimburse the applicant for the deficit as an 'Employee Termination Payment'.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent had subsequently assumed direct responsibility for funding the deficit.

The court rejected the respondent's limitation period and contributory fault defences, granting the declaration.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

The plaintiffs were successful on a bifurcated motion for leave to appeal a class action certification order.

They sought costs of $65,000 on a partial indemnity basis for the portion of the motion dealing with the remaining issues.

The defendant opposed an award of costs at this time, arguing for a single costs award at the end of the appeal.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, finding that the issues were discrete and an attendance-by-attendance award was appropriate.

The court fixed costs at $55,000, payable forthwith, after adjusting for duplication of time by senior counsel.

The appellants appealed a decision enforcing an arbitration award against them for breach of trust and oppression.

The respondents had entered into a sales agency agreement with the corporate appellant to distribute a film.

The directing mind of the corporate appellant restructured the film distribution operations, transferring assets to other companies and leaving the original corporation unable to remit distribution revenues owed to the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the distribution revenues were trust funds, that the appellants were liable for knowing assistance in a breach of trust, and that the restructuring constituted oppressive conduct designed to defeat creditors.

Following an appeal of a small claims court judgment where the respondent retained 60% of the original award, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $8,873.07 on a partial indemnity basis, while the appellants argued for their own costs due to divided success.

The court rejected the appellants' argument, noting their only success was on quantum, but reduced the respondent's costs to reflect her partial success.

The court awarded the respondent $6,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to strike portions of a statement of claim that asserted a claim in conspiracy.

The appeal was heard together with a companion case involving similar issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the same principles and reasons as in the companion case, and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the respondent.

The plaintiff insurer brought an action against the defendants for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy, alleging an elaborate insurance fraud scheme involving fraudulent medical assessments.

The defendants moved to strike the conspiracy claim under Rule 21, arguing it was redundant and merged with the nominate torts based on the doctrine of merger.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the conspiracy claim was redundant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court affirmed the decision, holding that the doctrine of merger should not be applied at the pleadings stage and should be left for the trial judge to determine on a full evidentiary record.

The appellant engineering firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $25,000 in unpaid fees for a geotechnical report and awarding costs to the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of the fee claim, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had agreed to a capped fee of '+/- $15,000' and that the appellant breached the agreement by refusing to deliver the final report until its higher invoices were paid.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge erred in law by awarding costs against the appellant for 'unreasonable behaviour' merely for naming an agent as a defendant, and by awarding legal fees to a self-represented lawyer without evidence of lost income.

The appellant hardwood retailer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the sale of hardwood flooring.

The flooring degraded due to inadequate humidity levels in the respondents' condominium.

The trial judge found the appellant breached its duty to advise the respondents of the product's specific, higher-than-normal humidity requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on causation, the respondents' lack of actual knowledge, the inapplicability of an exclusionary clause on the invoice, and the quantum of damages.

The defendant by counterclaim, ONEnergy Inc., sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the claims asserted against it by the plaintiff by counterclaim.

The underlying claim alleged oppressive conduct and sought a constructive trust over assets transferred to ONEnergy.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order or matters of general importance under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The self-represented appellant sought costs of $9,000 following an appeal, which included fees for counsel who assisted in preparing materials.

The respondent argued for costs of $2,728 on a partial indemnity basis, noting its success on a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court awarded the appellant $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, compensating for disbursements and partial indemnity for counsel assistance, offset by the respondent's successful motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Assessment Review Board changing the tax class of its property from farm land to vacant commercial land.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant failed to exhaust its statutory right of appeal under s. 43.1 of the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review because the applicant bypassed the statutory leave to appeal process.

The application was dismissed.