21 total
Pleadings in land claim found to seek only monetary relief, not recovery of Crown lands.
At a trial management conference, an issue arose as to whether the plaintiff's pleadings in an Indigenous land claim action sought the recovery of Crown lands or merely monetary relief for alleged breaches of duty.
The court ruled that determining this issue before trial was necessary.
Analyzing the pleadings, the court found the claim exclusively sought equitable compensation, damages, and accounting, and did not properly plead any present-day interest in or right to recover actual Crown land in the Haldimand Tract.
The court sanctioned the CCAA plans of major tobacco companies to effect a global settlement.
This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.
The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.
The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.
Court approved CCAA plan amendments and dismissed a social stakeholder's objection for lack of standing.
This endorsement addresses motions by the court-appointed Monitors in the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The Monitors sought approval for amendments to the CCAA Plans to resolve the allocation of a $750 million working capital holdback among the Tobacco Companies.
The only opposition came from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which objected as a social stakeholder but was found to lack standing.
The court granted the motions, finding the amendments did not adversely affect any creditors and were appropriate in the circumstances.
The court granted an unopposed motion for a Sanction Protocol Order in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.
The court confirmed that notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders were reasonable.
This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.
The court granted Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders to advance a $32.5 billion global settlement of tobacco claims under the CCAA.
The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.
These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.
The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.
The court granted unopposed motions extending the CCAA stay period and authorizing ancillary operational relief for the applicant tobacco companies.
This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.
Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.
RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.
The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.
The court granted an unopposed stay extension in complex CCAA proceedings and directed the Monitors and Mediator to collaboratively develop plans of arrangement.
This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.
Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.
The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.
The court dismissed Ontario's motion to lift the CCAA stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against tobacco companies.
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.
Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.
The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.
Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.
The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under the CCAA to impose a blanket stay on all proceedings.
The applicants, JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other ongoing litigation.
JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. moved for orders to file Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) leave applications but suspend further proceedings.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited sought a blanket stay of all proceedings and limitation periods.
The Quebec class action plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought to partially lift the stay.
The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 to stay all actions, including appellate proceedings and limitation periods.
The court dismissed the motion by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and granted Imperial Tobacco's motion, finding that a blanket stay best preserved the status quo and facilitated a global resolution for all stakeholders.
Environmental remediation orders against an insolvent company are stayed under CCAA if they constitute provable monetary claims.
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.
Mayor's deemed pecuniary interest from son's property near proposed transit station declared remote and insignificant.
The applicant, the Mayor of Cambridge, brought an application for a declaration that his deemed pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was so remote or insignificant that he was exempt from the duty to refrain from participating in council matters.
The interest arose because his son co-owned a condominium near a proposed rapid transit station, which a report suggested might experience a 'land value uplift'.
The Crown, named as respondent, argued it was improperly named, but the court held it was properly joined to represent the public interest.
The court granted the declaration, finding that a reasonable elector would not regard the uncertain and indirect potential increase in the son's property value as likely to influence the applicant's decisions on the mass transit project.
Mayor's deemed pecuniary interest from son's property near proposed transit station declared too remote to influence.
The applicant, a municipal mayor, brought an application for a declaration that his deemed pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was so remote or insignificant that he was exempt from the duty to refrain from participating in council matters regarding a mass transit project.
The deemed interest arose from his son's ownership of a condominium near a proposed transit station.
The court first held that the Crown was properly named as a respondent to represent the general public interest.
The court then granted the declaration, finding that a reasonable elector would not regard the potential, uncertain 'land value uplift' to the son's property as likely to influence the applicant's actions or decisions.
Environmental order appeal must proceed before specialized tribunal, not insolvency court.
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.
Plaintiff has standing to sue insurer for breach of trust judgment, but policy exclusions deny coverage.
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.
Late change of counsel does not justify reopening evidentiary record on motion.
In a coverage dispute arising from a judgment against a trust company, the defendant insurers sought to introduce additional evidence shortly before the hearing of a summary judgment motion after changing counsel.
The court considered whether the evidentiary record could be reopened to permit new affidavits, discovery answers, and documentary material.
The court held that a late change of counsel does not entitle a party to revise litigation strategy or add evidence contrary to established timetables and prior procedural orders.
Absent a satisfactory explanation for failing to include the evidence earlier, leave should not be granted.
The court permitted only a publicly available judicial endorsement already agreed to by the parties and refused all other proposed additions to the record.
Confidentiality order partially granted for irrelevant documents filed in evidence; relevant documents made public.
During a hearing to review a decision of the Toronto Stock Exchange regarding HudBay Minerals Inc.'s proposed acquisition of Lundin Mining Corporation, HudBay and Lundin requested confidentiality orders for certain documents filed in evidence.
The Ontario Securities Commission considered the open court principle and the test for confidentiality under section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Sierra Club.
The Commission granted confidentiality for documents that were not relevant to its decision on the merits, including handwritten notes and a financial presentation.
However, it ordered that relevant documents, such as special committee minutes and an engagement letter, be made public, subject to minor redactions for third-party sensitive information.
Leave to appeal granted on compelled expert report disclosure abrogating litigation privilege, but denied on storage costs.
The moving party, a defendant in a motor vehicle action, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that compelled the disclosure of any expert's report obtained from a joint vehicle inspection and required the parties to split outstanding storage costs.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the disclosure order, finding good reason to doubt its correctness as it abrogated litigation privilege, which is a matter of public importance.
However, the court denied leave to appeal the storage costs order, characterizing it as a discretionary decision with no broader public importance.
Costs of fresh evidence motion fixed at $36,000; costs of first trial reserved to new trial judge.
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.
Fresh evidence of employee's alleged fraud admitted on appeal; new trial ordered for wrongful dismissal.
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.