5 total
Motion to vary order dismissing stay pending leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada dismissed.
The Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge that dismissed its motion to stay a portion of certain Superior Court orders pending its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no reviewable error in the single judge's application of the three-part test for a stay, including her conclusion that there was little likelihood of leave being granted and that irreparable harm was not established.
Motion for stay pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed.
The Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) brought a motion to stay portions of judgments requiring it to pay approximately $160 million in retroactive payments to several non-utility generators, pending its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that OEFC failed to establish a serious issue to be adjudicated, as the proposed appeal issues were highly fact-specific and lacked precedential value.
Furthermore, OEFC failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted.
Appeal dismissed; application judge properly interpreted power purchase agreements regarding the calculation of Total Market Costs.
The appellant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation, appealed a decision regarding the calculation of amounts payable to the respondent non-utility generators under long-term power purchase agreements.
The dispute centered on whether a new government regulation reallocating the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GA) altered the calculation of Total Market Costs (TMC) under the agreements.
The application judge found that the new GA calculation was inconsistent with the definition of TMC, which required costs to be allocated pro rata to consumption.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not decide the case on an unargued issue, made no palpable and overriding factual errors, and properly interpreted the agreements without improperly implying a term.
Class action certification upheld for franchisees alleging price maintenance and conspiracy by franchisor and distributor.
The appellants, a restaurant franchisor and its food distributor, appealed a Divisional Court decision certifying a class action brought by former franchisees.
The franchisees alleged the appellants engaged in a price maintenance scheme, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract by charging exorbitant prices for supplies.
The Court of Appeal upheld the certification, finding that the motion judge erred by focusing too heavily on the individual nature of damages and failing to recognize that the breach of the Competition Act, conspiracy, and breach of contract claims constituted valid common issues.
The court also affirmed that aggregate damages provisions under the Class Proceedings Act could potentially be utilized at trial.
No surviving fiduciary duty, but misuse of confidential information justified the trial remedy.
Commercial appeal arising from a terminated joint venture funding agreement for the acquisition of Greek mines.
The Court of Appeal held that no fiduciary duty survived termination of the parties' arm's-length commercial agreement, but upheld findings that the respondent group provided confidential information, that the appellant misused that information in acquiring the property, and that the confidentiality agreement and common law duty of confidence were enforceable.
The court refused to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test and dismissed a non-party motion to set aside the judgment based on alleged ownership of the information.
The remedy awarding a 12 per cent carried interest plus a further 12 per cent participating interest was upheld, while both the main appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.
