James William Earl Doris

The parties sought to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the division and sale of jointly owned commercial properties.

The respondents alleged the applicants breached the agreement by failing to extend a bid deadline during the property auction.

The court found the applicants did not breach the agreement, as the independent broker recommended against the extension and the contract did not require it.

The respondents were found in breach for refusing to execute the backstop purchase agreement without unauthorized amendments.

The court ordered specific performance, compelling the respondents to execute the agreement as drafted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion to compel the discovery of Anna Shlimak, a former consultant to Cronos Group Inc., either as a corporate representative or as a non-party.

The court found that the plaintiff had not met the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure for examining a non-party or a second corporate representative, as there was no evidence that the information sought could not be obtained from the existing corporate representative, Michael Gorenstein, or that he was unwilling or unable to provide complete answers.

The court also noted that the plaintiff had voluntarily declined a further day of examination with Gorenstein.

The defendants’ offer to answer written interrogatories, including those requiring input from Shlimak, was found to be a reasonable alternative.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the defendants.

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 Plaintiffs moved for approval of Pierringer settlement agreements with Third Party Defendants.

The Citibank Defendants consented to the approval but cross-moved for conditions ensuring continued discovery rights, including the right to examine Michael Yurkovich as a party.

The court approved the Pierringer agreements, imposing the condition that Third Party Defendants retain their obligations as if they remained parties, specifically granting the Citibank Defendants discovery and cross-examination rights due to the non-arm's-length relationship between the Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendants.

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 appellants appealed a motion judge's order granting leave to amend a statement of claim.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The court found the order to be interlocutory, confirming that appeals of such orders lie with the Divisional Court with leave, not the Court of Appeal.

The motion to quash was granted.

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 plaintiff sought certification of a proposed securities class action under the Ontario Securities Act, alleging misrepresentation by the defendants regarding the value of Cronos Group Inc. shares.

The defendants opposed certification and brought a forum non conveniens motion to stay claims of non-Canadian shareholders who purchased shares on the NASDAQ exchange, arguing these shareholders were already covered by a parallel U.S. class action.

The court granted certification for the proposed class, including U.S. shareholders, and dismissed the defendants' forum non conveniens motion, emphasizing Ontario's jurisdiction and the policy of access to justice.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in fraudulent conduct by diverting $234,864.04 from a solar energy fund contrary to its offering memorandum, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of the diverted funds, imposed administrative penalties totaling $476,000, and ordered the respondents to pay $112,500 in costs.

The Tribunal also imposed permanent market bans on the respondents, subject to limited carve-outs for personal trading and acting as directors of specific private family companies.

The appellant sought leave to bring a class action against Cronos Group Inc. and others for alleged misrepresentations in public filings.

The motion judge dismissed the leave and certification motions, characterizing the claim as alleging thousands of separate misrepresentations and finding insufficient evidence of individual materiality.

The Court of Appeal found this characterization erroneous, holding that the claim alleged one central misrepresentation regarding inflated revenues.

The Court determined there was a reasonable possibility of success, given the admitted misrepresentations, subsequent corrections, and share price drops, despite conflicting expert evidence on causation.

The appeal was allowed, leave granted, and the certification issue remitted to the Superior Court.

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 appellants (defendants at trial) appealed a trial judgment that found them in breach of contract for failing to sell a car dealership to the respondent (plaintiff at trial) and awarded $5 million in damages in lieu of specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that a binding agreement on essential terms had been reached between the parties, despite the absence of a formal written document.

The court also upheld the trial judge's calculation of damages, which reflected the lost opportunity based on the difference between the respondent's offer and a higher third-party offer accepted by the appellants.

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.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adduce an expert report at an upcoming merits hearing regarding alleged misleading statements and fraud by the respondents in relation to a solar energy investment fund.

The respondents objected to the report's admissibility.

The Commission first determined that it was appropriate to decide the admissibility issue at a preliminary stage before the merits hearing, applying the Mega-C test.

On the merits of the admissibility, the Commission held that the expert's opinions on solar industry norms were rendered irrelevant by the respondents' undertaking not to lead evidence or make submissions on those points.

The expert's opinion on the reasonable expectations of investors was deemed unnecessary as it fell within the Commission's own expertise.

Consequently, the expert report was ruled inadmissible.

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 plaintiff in a proposed securities class action sought an "exclusivity order" to prevent other actions on the same subject matter from being commenced in Ontario without leave of the court.

The defendants did not object.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that Ontario's established procedure for managing competing class actions involves a "carriage motion" once rival claims emerge, rather than a pre-emptive exclusivity order.

The court distinguished the Federal Court's "inclusivity order" in Heyder v. Canada (Attorney General) as not overriding Ontario's endorsed approach.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that a reporting issuer and seven of its former officers and directors contravened Ontario securities law by making materially misleading disclosures regarding copper production and financial performance, failing to maintain adequate internal controls, and providing inadequate risk disclosure.

The respondents admitted to the contraventions and to conduct contrary to the public interest.

The Commission approved a settlement agreement requiring the corporate respondent to make a $28.5 million voluntary payment and pay $1.5 million in costs, while the individual respondents agreed to pay administrative penalties ranging from $350,000 to $2.45 million, pay $50,000 each in costs, and be subject to director and officer bans.

The Commission found the settlement fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

The appellant sought an order declaring that it had properly commenced an arbitration by written demand dated October 6, 2017.

The arbitration clause in the insurance contract allowed the insured to select the venue and procedural laws of Bermuda or one of London, Toronto, or Vancouver under the English Arbitration Act of 1996.

The appellant argued that while the Act was incorporated by reference, its procedural provisions were excluded for arbitrations outside the UK, and that the UNCITRAL Rules would apply instead.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the plain wording of the contract required that where Toronto was the seat chosen, the arbitration be conducted in accordance with the procedural laws set out in the Act.

The Court also declined to determine whether the arbitration had been properly commenced, reserving that question to the arbitrators.