Jason M. Squire

The appellants appealed a sealing order that redacted the amounts to be paid under two proposed settlement agreements in a CCAA proceeding.

The appellants argued the sealing order unjustifiably infringed the open court principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that litigation settlement privilege applied to the settlement agreements until approved by the court.

The court held that the sealing order was a minimal intrusion on the open court principle, the requirement to sign a confidentiality agreement did not impose an undue burden, and the respondents did not waive privilege by complying with the court order.

Following a successful appeal that dismissed the respondent's class action claim, the appellants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, administering the class proceedings fund, argued against a costs award under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, claiming the case involved novel issues and public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the case merely applied existing Supreme Court precedent.

Costs were awarded to the appellants, fixed at $55,000 for the appeal and $125,000 for the action.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the administration fee charged by the defendant satellite television providers to delinquent subscribers constituted a criminal rate of interest under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

The Court held that the administration fee was a legitimate estimate of collection costs and was not paid or payable for the advancing of credit, and therefore did not constitute interest under s. 347.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a product liability class action regarding allegedly defective door latches in certain Ford vehicles.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the claims did not raise common issues, as the differences in door latch mechanisms across vehicle models meant that findings for one vehicle could not be extrapolated to others.

The court also agreed that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the regulatory role of Transport Canada, and that the appellant was not an appropriate representative plaintiff due to his lack of involvement and the inadequate litigation plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an endorsement of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the respondent misrepresented the applicable software before the lower court judge.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's factual conclusion that no such misrepresentation was established.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.

The parties appealed the trial judge's costs award in a shareholder oppression and valuation proceeding.

The trial judge had awarded the dissenting shareholders substantial indemnity costs up to the date of a settlement offer, and awarded the corporation partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both costs appeals, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion under s. 241(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Court also ordered no costs for the main appeals due to divided success.

The minority shareholders of Ford Canada dissented from a squeeze-out transaction and sought fair value for their shares, along with an oppression remedy against Ford Canada and Ford U.S. regarding a transfer pricing system that caused the Canadian subsidiary to lose money over a ten-year period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the transfer pricing system was oppressive and that the business judgment rule did not protect the directors.

However, the Court reversed the dismissal of the oppression claim against Ford U.S., finding that the parent company's actions were oppressive.

The Court also held that minority shareholders were not entitled to compensation for historical oppression that occurred before they acquired their shares, and that fair value does not include a component for historical oppression.

The trial judge's order directing a reference to a Master to determine shareholdings was set aside.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that while a certain letter should have been before the motion judge, the result would have been the same given the history of the matter and the appellant's failure to explain the default or comply with outstanding undertakings.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that no enforceable agreement was reached for a fur salon licence, as essential terms were missing.

The respondent cross-appealed the finding that it negligently misrepresented its ability to terminate an existing licence, and appealed the costs award, specifically the allowance of expert witness fees as a full disbursement on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, cross-appeal, and costs appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable errors and correctly treated expert fees as disbursements not subject to partial indemnity reduction.