James David Bunting

The applicant, a hedge fund shareholder, brought an urgent application under section 248 of the OBCA seeking to adjourn the respondent corporation's annual general and special meeting of shareholders and to reset the record date.

The applicant alleged the notice was non-compliant with the OBCA and that the board acted oppressively by setting a timeline that effectively prevented shareholders from nominating an alternative slate of directors.

The court found that the respondent was not an "offering corporation" and had met all statutory notice requirements under sections 95(4) and 96(1) of the OBCA.

The court held that the notice procedures followed past practice and did not breach the reasonable expectations of shareholders as established in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders.

The application was dismissed with costs of $75,000 to the respondent.

In a landmark CCAA proceeding involving Hudson's Bay Company, the court declined to approve the assignment of 25 major retail department store leases across Canada to a new tenant, Ruby Liu Commercial Investment Corp., despite the transaction representing the highest bid and generating approximately $50 million in net proceeds for creditors.

The court found that the proposed assignee failed to meet the reasonableness standard under section 11.3(3) of the CCAA, particularly regarding its ability to perform the substantial and ongoing obligations under the leases.

The decision emphasizes that section 11.3 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, and that the court must balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the contractual counterparties (landlords) who would be compelled into a long-term relationship with an untested and undercapitalized purchaser.

The court also rejected the applicants' arguments that certain lease provisions constituted ipso facto clauses violating the anti-deprivation rule and section 34 of the CCAA.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

The Applicants, Apollo Technology Capital Corporation and Nobul Technologies Inc., sought orders regarding the conduct of the upcoming annual general meeting (AGM) of MediPharm Labs Corp., including the appointment of an independent chair, the appointment of TSX Trust as scrutineer, and a declaration regarding the validity of their Dissident Circular.

The Court declined to grant the requested relief, finding no evidence of impropriety or unfairness in the process established by MediPharm’s by-laws and confirming that the issues raised could be addressed after the AGM if necessary.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.

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.

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 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 plaintiff moved for certification of a class action against FedEx, alleging undisclosed and unsolicited fees for customs clearance services (Advancement Fee and Clearance Entry Fee) in violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a non-commercial purchaser, received an invoice for these fees after being promised "free shipping," believing them to be government levies.

The court found that the claim disclosed viable causes of action under the CPA, including unsolicited services and unfair practices, and unjust enrichment.

It rejected FedEx's arguments regarding agency, territorial reach of the CPA, and the sufficiency of website disclosures.

The court also found the proposed class identifiable, common issues present, and a class action to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the goals of judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The action was certified.

The applicants (vendors) sought the release of $40 million from an $80 million escrow account, arguing that the respondents (purchasers) failed to provide timely and sufficient notice of an indemnity claim related to an undisclosed $213 million guarantee.

The respondents contended that proper notice was given, the deadline was tolled by agreement, and relief from forfeiture should apply.

The court dismissed the application, finding that notice was timely given to the vendors, the Tolling Agreement suspended any relevant deadlines, and the notice content was sufficient.

The court also stated that it would have granted relief from forfeiture due to the applicants' conduct and the disproportionate impact.

This decision addresses a class action arising from a cyber breach of CarePartners' computer system.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class for settlement purposes, approval of the settlement agreement, and approval of class counsel fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The court granted all motions, certifying the class, approving a $3.44 million settlement fund, a 20% contingency fee for class counsel, and $5,000 honoraria for each representative plaintiff.

The judgment notably provides a detailed analysis and affirmation of the practice of awarding honoraria to representative plaintiffs in class actions, disagreeing with a recent decision that sought to end the practice, and outlining factors for assessing their quantum.

The appellants, an Indian law firm and its senior partner, appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay or dismiss an action brought by Kyko Global Inc., an Ontario corporation.

The action alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract related to a legal opinion provided by the appellants.

The appellants argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on presumptive connecting factors (tort occurring in Ontario, contract made in Ontario) and that the appellants failed to demonstrate that Mumbai, India, was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, Robert Drynan, brought a motion to approve a third-party litigation funding agreement in a class action against Bausch Health Companies Inc. and related entities, alleging misleading marketing of COLD-FX® products.

The court addressed the defendants' objections concerning security for costs, litigation autonomy, overcompensation, and access to justice.

After amendments to the funding agreement to cap recovery for the funder and class counsel at 33.3% of proceeds and defer court approval for certain expenses, the court approved the agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and conducive to access to justice, while protecting the defendants' interests.

This endorsement fixes the quantum of costs following a prior decision where WCL Capital Group Inc.'s cross-motion was dismissed and Google LLC's motion to permanently stay WCL's action was granted.

WCL was ordered to pay costs to Google and Amex Bank of Canada on a partial indemnity basis.

The court assessed the cost outlines, considering factors under Rule 57.01(1), including complexity, importance, and proportionality.

It found Google's claimed hourly rates and total hours excessive, noting duplication with Amex's submissions and disproportionality to the amount in issue.

The court fixed Amex's all-inclusive costs at $18,000 and Google's all-inclusive costs at $30,000.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages related to their exclusion from the 2016 Olympic Games.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process, and to strike the statement of claim against McLaren.

The court found that resolving the jurisdictional issues would require extensive fact-finding, including assessing conflicting expert opinions and credibility, which exceeds the scope of a Rule 21 motion.

Consequently, the Rule 21.01(3) motions were ordered to be reconstituted as Rule 20 summary judgment motions or a trial of issues, and McLaren's Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion was deferred.

The court addressed scheduling for submissions regarding the appropriate penalty in a proceeding brought by the Commissioner of Competition against telecommunications companies.

The parties appeared to establish timelines for written submissions and oral argument on penalty.

The court set deadlines for the applicant’s submissions, the respondents’ responding submissions, and the applicant’s reply.

Dates were also scheduled for oral argument concerning the penalty to be imposed.

In an application alleging misleading advertising under s. 74.01(1)(b) of the Competition Act, the respondents sought leave to call eight expert witnesses despite the five‑expert limit imposed by s. 7 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that some expert evidence was duplicative and that certain proposed opinions concerning the “general impression” of advertisements were inadmissible.

The court held that the proposed expert evidence was not unnecessarily duplicative and would not unduly prolong the hearing.

The court also determined that the admissibility of portions of the challenged expert evidence, including survey evidence and analysis of advertisements, could be addressed during trial if relied upon.

Leave was therefore granted to the respondents to call eight expert witnesses.

In an application alleging misleading advertising under ss. 74.01(1)(a) and (b) of the Competition Act regarding claims of fewer dropped calls by a wireless provider, the court addressed discovery disputes involving communications between the Competition Bureau and industry participants.

The respondents sought disclosure of communications between the applicant and several wireless competitors, as well as internal investigative notes.

The court held that public interest privilege did not apply to communications with two competitors that had publicly promoted their role in the investigation, and ordered disclosure of communications occurring before litigation became the dominant purpose.

However, documents created after litigation was contemplated were protected by litigation privilege.

Communications involving another competitor and internal notes relating to discussions with a federal department remained protected by public interest privilege.

Following the refusal of an interlocutory injunction sought by the landlord applicants to compel a hotel operator to continue operating a hotel under a particular brand, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicants argued that an indemnity clause in a lease entitled them to full indemnity costs from a former tenant alleged to have breached the lease.

The court held that the indemnity clause did not permit the landlord to recover litigation costs from a prior tenant where the present tenant supported the motion and where the lease’s procedures regarding a change of operating name had not been followed.

Even if the clause applied, the court would decline to exercise its discretion to award costs to the applicants.

Costs were awarded instead to the successful respondent hotel operator.