James Doris

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's costs award under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondent its full legal expenses, including fees paid to its corporate counsel for 'litigation support'.

The court first determined that leave to appeal an arbitral costs award is not required under section 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, as that provision applies only to courts.

On the merits, the court found that the arbitrator did not err in principle or act plainly wrong in awarding full indemnity costs, noting that the Arbitration Act does not bind arbitrators to the scales of costs in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's decision to allow recovery of the litigation support fees.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal of an arbitral costs award on the basis that the appellants failed to seek leave to appeal under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants argued that the Arbitration Act and their arbitration agreement provided broad appeal rights without the need for leave.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the appeal was not manifestly devoid of merit and that the requirement for leave in commercial arbitrations with broad appeal agreements remains an open question to be determined by the judge hearing the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market securities class action under the Securities Act and a motion for certification under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant cannabis company and its directors made thousands of misrepresentations regarding revenue recognition, which were later corrected in restated financial statements.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility that the plaintiff could prove the alleged misrepresentations had a material impact on the share price.

Consequently, the court also dismissed the certification motion, as the pleadings failed to disclose a viable cause of action for the remaining common law and oppression claims.

A case conference was held to determine the sequencing and scheduling of proceedings leading up to the leave and certification motions.

The parties agreed on consent to have both motions heard at the same time and established a timetable for the exchange of materials, cross-examinations, and factums, with hearing dates set for June 7-9, 2021.

The applicant applied for an order to resolve an insurance policy dispute by arbitration at JAMS offices in Toronto.

The respondent argued that the arbitration should be conducted under the English Arbitration Act and that the applicant had not properly commenced the arbitration.

The court found that its jurisdiction to intervene only arises if there is a failure of the parties to agree on the appointment procedure.

Since the applicant had not followed the agreed procedure by making a proper written request and appointing its arbitrator, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an Indigenous person, sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcast and display of the Cleveland Indians' team name and 'Chief Wahoo' logo during the American League Championship Series in Toronto, pending human rights complaints.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the name and logo constituted discrimination in the provision of a service.

However, the court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the delay in bringing the application, and found the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the material prejudice of last-minute broadcast and uniform changes.

The plaintiffs in a certified securities class action sought judicial approval of a $17 million settlement and class counsel's legal fees of approximately $4.1 million.

The court expressed concern over the use of boiler-plate affidavits in settlement approvals and required class counsel to provide supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amount fell within a zone of reasonableness.

After reviewing the additional information regarding litigation risks and damages ranges, the court found the settlement to be in the best interests of the class and approved both the settlement and the requested legal fees.

The defendant BCE Inc. brought a consent motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning alleged secondary market misrepresentations.

The court found that the plaintiff's statutory and common law claims were statute-barred because no motion for leave had been brought within the applicable limitation periods.

As no purpose would be served by continuing the action and no prejudice would result, the court granted leave to discontinue the action without costs and without notice to the putative class members.

The applicant sought an order rectifying a series of corporate transactions carried out in December 2007 to allow it to realize a tax loss of approximately $168 million to offset foreign exchange gains.

The Canada Revenue Agency had reassessed the applicant, disallowing the loss on the basis that the dissolution of a partnership was effected on a tax-deferred rollover basis under s. 98(5) of the Income Tax Act.

The court granted the application, finding that the parties had a continuing specific intention to carry out the transactions to create a tax loss, and that the failure to avoid the application of s. 98(5) was a mistake.

A motion by the applicant to amend its notice of application was dismissed as unnecessary.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking production of documents in insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful parties.

Applying the reasonableness principle and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed costs claimed by the monitor, the creditors’ committee, and the applicants.

The court rejected arguments that certain participants should receive reduced or no costs and instead fixed reasonable amounts reflecting their participation in the motion.

Costs were awarded to each successful party and ordered payable within 30 days.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the moving party sought an order requiring the Monitor to disclose all information and documents it considered when reviewing proofs of claim submitted by another creditor group.

The moving party intended to use this information at a claims hearing to argue that the claims officer should apply the same standard of proof used by the Monitor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the roles of the Monitor and the claims officer under the claims procedure order were fundamentally different, and the request constituted an impermissible collateral attack on that order.

Furthermore, the court noted that comparing claims would result in an unnecessary trial within a trial and risk disclosing confidential lending practices.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario against Russian defendants and attempted to serve them in Russia pursuant to the Hague Service Convention.

The Russian Ministry of Justice refused to facilitate service, citing sovereignty or security concerns under Article 13 of the Convention.

The plaintiffs obtained an order from a Master validating service under Rule 16.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants appealed.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 17.05(3) implements the Convention's exclusive methods for service in a contracting state, precluding the application of Rules 16.04 and 16.08 to substitute or validate service.