James William Earl Doris

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.

Crystallex International Corporation applied for the recognition and enforcement of a US $1.202 billion international arbitration award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The award stemmed from Venezuela's expropriation of Crystallex's investment in a gold mining project, in breach of a bilateral investment treaty.

The court found that service on Venezuela was properly effected under the State Immunity Act and that Crystallex satisfied the requirements of Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law for recognition and enforcement.

No grounds for refusal under Article 36 were raised or found, as the dispute was arbitrable and enforcement consistent with Ontario public policy.

The court granted the order for recognition and enforcement, including pre and post-award interest, and awarded costs to Crystallex.

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.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on behalf of problem gamblers who had signed self-exclusion forms but were subsequently permitted to enter gambling venues and suffered losses.

The action alleged breach of contract, negligence, and occupiers' liability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions denying certification, finding that the claims required highly individualized inquiries into each class member's vulnerability, gambling history, and personal autonomy.

The court concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure as the common issues would not significantly advance the litigation.

The plaintiffs sought consent certification of a proposed securities class action alleging that the defendant mining company and certain officers misrepresented the scope and impact of water inflow problems at a Quebec gold mine, causing losses to purchasers of the company’s shares.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and, given the parties’ consent and the evidentiary record, found that the statutory criteria were satisfied.

The plaintiffs also sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act to pursue statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims.

The court held that the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

Certification and leave were granted.

The appellants sought to commence proceedings against the Russian respondents in Ontario and attempted to serve them in Russia under the Hague Convention.

The Russian government refused service citing sovereignty and national security.

The appellants brought a motion in Ontario to dispense with or validate service under rules 16.04 and 16.08.

The Court of Appeal held that rule 17.05(3), which incorporates the Convention, is a complete code for service on foreign defendants in contracting states, and Ontario courts have no discretion to substitute, dispense with, or validate service where the Convention applies.

The appeal addressed whether a federal regulator had statutory authority to implement a market-based regime requiring negotiations over compensation for retransmission of local television signals.

The majority held the proposed regime exceeded statutory authority and conflicted with the copyright scheme governing retransmission rights and exceptions.

The dissent would have found a sufficient statutory basis and no operational conflict between the two statutes.

The appeal was allowed, with costs throughout.

The respondent in a proposed class action moved to strike the appellants' reply factum filed on a motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the respondent's factum did not raise any new issues but was entirely responsive to the appellants' factum.

Under Rule 61.03.1(11), a reply factum is only permitted if the responding party raises an issue on which the moving party has not taken a position.

Mercer International Inc. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for a simultaneous hearing with the Québec Bureau de décision et de révision to consider whether AbitibiBowater's take-over bid for Fibrek Inc. should be cease traded.

The Commission acknowledged it had jurisdiction to hear the application, as Fibrek is a reporting issuer in Ontario and the bid affected Ontario shareholders.

However, the Commission declined to exercise its jurisdiction, noting that the Bureau was already seized of the matter, the applicable securities laws were substantially similar, and a simultaneous hearing would not advance the harmonization and co-ordination of securities regulatory regimes.

The application was dismissed.

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.

The applicants, minority shareholders of MI Developments Inc. (MID), brought applications under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act alleging that MID failed to comply with Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (MI 61-101) by not obtaining minority shareholder approval for a series of related party transactions with Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC).

The transactions included loans, loan extensions, and debtor-in-possession financing.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the applications, finding that section 104 does not apply to related party transactions.

While the Commission permitted the applications under section 127, it concluded that MID was entitled to rely on the downstream transaction exception and the market capitalization exemption under MI 61-101.

The Commission also found no prima facie case of insider trading in connection with a related trust transaction.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered a proposed plan of arrangement for a leveraged buyout of BCE Inc. that would add substantial debt to Bell Canada, reducing the trading value of its debentures.

The debentureholders opposed the arrangement, claiming oppression under s. 241 of the CBCA and arguing the arrangement was not fair and reasonable under s. 192.

The Court held that the directors' fiduciary duty is owed to the corporation, not to specific stakeholders, though directors may consider stakeholder interests.

The debentureholders failed to establish a reasonable expectation that their investment grade rating would be maintained.

The Court affirmed the trial judge's approval of the arrangement, finding it had a valid business purpose and resolved objections in a fair and balanced way.

The respondents brought a motion for an order requiring Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission to make meaningful disclosure of documents relevant to the specific allegations against them.

Staff had provided a database containing over 4.3 million pages of documents obtained during a four-year investigation, without separating relevant from irrelevant material.

The Commission held that Staff had not satisfied its legal obligation to make meaningful disclosure simply by delivering the massive database.

Staff was ordered to apply reasonable judgment to identify and disclose the documents relevant to the specific allegations against each respondent, rather than foisting the obligation to sift through the material onto the respondents.

The appellants, an investment management firm and minority shareholder, appealed the dismissal of their oppression application against the respondent corporation and its directors.

The application judge had found that the challenged related-party transactions were within the reasonable expectations of shareholders and protected by the business judgment rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The court upheld the award of substantial indemnity costs due to the appellants' unfounded allegations of misconduct and misuse of the court process, but allowed the costs appeal in part to deduct pre-application costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission convened a hearing to consider a settlement agreement between Staff and Eugene N. Melnyk regarding allegations of failing to file insider trading reports and failing to disclose his relationship with offshore trusts that traded heavily in Biovail shares.

The Commission approved the settlement, which included a $750,000 administrative penalty, $250,000 in costs, a one-year ban on acting as a director of Biovail, and a reprimand, finding the sanctions sufficient for specific and general deterrence.