Jeffrey S. Leon

The appellant's appeal was previously dismissed as premature.

The respondents sought costs for the appeal.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that costs should be deferred to the end of the proceeding, noting the appeal was a discrete episode.

Applying the principle of what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $4,000 for the Chiropractic Review Committee and $3,000 for the General Manager, payable in six months.

The appellant appealed an order interpreting the term 'legal custody' in a trust agreement between former common law spouses.

The motion judge had interpreted the phrase in accordance with s. 20 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to construe the words in the context of the whole agreement to give effect to the parties' intent.

The Court held that the self-represented parties intended 'legal custody' to mean custody pursuant to a court order, and ordered the sum of $104,620.80 paid to the appellant.

The appellant chiropractor appealed a preliminary decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB) that struck out certain grounds of appeal regarding an OHIP billing audit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, holding that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented and the appellant could raise the issues after a final decision on the merits.

The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed an order lifting a CCAA stay and permitting bankruptcy petitions to proceed against the insolvent Ivaco companies.

The Superintendent argued that unpaid pension contributions subject to a deemed trust under the Pension Benefits Act should have been paid or segregated before bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the CCAA and BIA create a comprehensive federal insolvency scheme that leaves no gap for provincial deemed trusts to operate outside of bankruptcy.

The court also upheld the motions judge's discretionary decision to lift the stay and his order transferring the companies' head offices to Toronto under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

During a CCAA restructuring of Stelco Inc., the board of directors appointed two new directors who were associated with major shareholders.

Employee stakeholders, fearing the new directors would favour shareholder interests over employee interests in the restructuring, successfully applied to the supervising judge to have the directors removed based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, holding that the supervising judge lacked inherent jurisdiction or statutory authority under section 11 of the CCAA to remove duly appointed directors.

The Court further held that the administrative law concept of reasonable apprehension of bias does not apply to corporate directors, whose conduct is governed by fiduciary duties and the business judgment rule.

The Liquidator of Shoppers Trust Corporation applied for directions regarding the distribution of unanticipated surplus funds of approximately $6 million.

The motion judge ruled that a previous order fixing an earlier interest calculation date precluded creditors from claiming interest up to the winding-up date, thereby allowing the surplus to be paid to a subordinated noteholder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in treating the motion for directions as a motion to vary and in failing to apply the fundamental insolvency principle of pari passu distribution.

The Court held that creditors are entitled to prove their claims for principal and interest to the date of the winding-up in priority to subordinated noteholders.

The moving parties, two directors who were removed from the board of a company undergoing restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, sought an order expediting the hearing of their motion for leave to appeal the removal order.

The court granted the motion to expedite, finding that the fast-moving and unpredictable nature of CCAA proceedings required a generous view of urgency to provide the board with certainty regarding its composition during a critical phase of restructuring.

The appellant sold a surplus grain terminal to a purchaser with an agreement intended to include a restrictive covenant preventing the property's use for grain handling.

The property was later sold in a tax sale to a new purchaser who intended to use it for grain handling.

The appellant sued for a declaration that the restrictive covenant ran with the land and sought rectification of the original agreement if the covenant was found defective.

The motion judge struck out the rectification claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and declared the covenant did not survive the tax sale.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the rectification claim could not succeed, and set aside the declaratory orders.

Appeal in a professional negligence action against an accountant arising from a review engagement for a retail business that failed to remit over $1 million in provincial retail sales tax.

The court held the accountant owed a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and breached the applicable standard by failing to make intelligent inquiries about glaring discrepancies between sales and remittance figures, particularly given the client's prior audit history.

A contractual exclusion clause did not shield the accountant because it operated only where the review engagement was conducted in accordance with applicable standards.

The appellant could recover losses tied to penalty, assessed interest, and non-recoverable income tax consequences, but not post-assessment borrowing costs or professional fees; damages were reduced by 50 per cent for contributory negligence.

The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ordered several persons to appear before a Hearing Officer to give evidence in an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act.

The Hearing Officer made rulings limiting the role of counsel, including denying the right to cross-examine witnesses, excluding a potential witness, and ruling that the Director need not disclose his reasons for commencing the inquiry.

The appellants sought to quash these rulings.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the inquiry was purely investigatory and that neither the Act nor the common law doctrine of fairness required the Director to disclose his reasons or permitted counsel to cross-examine witnesses at this preliminary stage.

The appellant appealed a conviction for trafficking in heroin, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to advert to the danger of acting on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were adequate to support the conviction, especially given that the accomplice's evidence was accepted and there was, in fact, corroboration.