Jacqueline L. Wall

The Ministry of the Environment appealed a CCAA judge's decision that environmental remediation orders issued against an insolvent company were subject to a stay of proceedings.

The insolvent company had abandoned a contaminated site after selling its other assets.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in AbitibiBowater, the Court of Appeal found it was sufficiently certain that the Ministry would perform the remediation work itself, making the regulatory orders in substance a provable monetary claim in the insolvency.

The appeal was dismissed.

Former directors and officers of an insolvent corporation sought an order requiring that an environmental remediation claim filed by the provincial environment ministry be adjudicated within ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

They also sought to stay an appeal proceeding before the Environmental Review Tribunal concerning a director’s order requiring remediation of a contaminated site.

The court held that the statutory scheme under the Environmental Protection Act assigns jurisdiction over appeals of director’s environmental orders to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Given that the insolvency restructuring had effectively concluded and no plan of arrangement would compromise claims against the directors and officers, there was no basis for the insolvency court to assume jurisdiction over the environmental order appeal.

The court rejected arguments based on federal paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity.

The motion was dismissed and the matter left to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The plaintiff, acting as receiver, obtained a judgment against a trust company for breach of trust.

The plaintiff then brought an action against the trust company's insurer to satisfy the judgment and moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff had standing to sue the insurer based on an assignment of the right to sue, rather than under section 132(1) of the Insurance Act.

While the court determined that the policy initially provided coverage for the breach of trust, it ultimately held that coverage was excluded under policy provisions relating to dishonest acts and the gaining of an illegal advantage.

The court also found that the insurer's duty of good faith to the insured had been assigned to the plaintiff, leaving the issue of whether that duty was breached for trial.

Following a decision ordering a new trial, the court issued an addendum on costs.

The court clarified that the new trial would only extend to claims that formed the subject-matter of the appeal, and stayed the execution of a damages award against one respondent pending the new trial.

The costs of the first trial were reserved to the presiding justice at the new trial.

The appellant was awarded costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, fixed at $36,000 on a partial indemnity basis, specifically for the motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment that found it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and dismissed its claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence showing the respondent had been criminally charged with defrauding the appellant of over $200,000 through a secret scheme involving a third-party corporation.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it met the Palmer criteria, including due diligence, as the evidence was largely uncovered through a subsequent police investigation.

Concluding that the fresh evidence could have decisively affected the trial judge's findings on the respondent's credibility and loyalty, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.