Jessica A. Kimmel

The defendant, AT Plastics Inc., sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's discovery ruling.

The Master had ruled that the plaintiff, IPEX Inc., was not required to answer certain questions or produce documents regarding its insurers' involvement in a prior $125 million class action settlement.

The court found reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, noting that the private insurance exception may have been incorrectly applied as a complete bar to obtaining relevant information from the insurers.

Finding the issue to be of general importance, the court granted leave to appeal.

In the context of the global insolvency of Nortel Networks, the UK Pension Claimants (UKPC) asserted multiple claims against the Canadian debtors (NNC and NNL).

The UKPC claimed for a contingent Financial Support Direction (FSD) under UK pension law, amounts under a Funding Guarantee and a Swift Guarantee, and remedies for oppression and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the FSD claim as too remote and speculative to constitute a provable claim in the CCAA proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claims under the Swift Guarantee, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court allowed the UKPC's claim under the Funding Guarantee, finding NNL liable for £339.75 million.

Two related applications arose from a commercial arbitration concerning a Liquidity Payment obligation under a financing arrangement between a dairy company and a pension fund.

The moving party sought to set aside a final arbitral award under s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging breaches of procedural fairness and arguing the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was unreasonable.

The court held the arbitration process was fair, the parties had adequate opportunity to present their cases, and the arbitrator’s interpretation of the Liquidity Payment Agreement was consistent with its plain language.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed.

The responding party’s application to enforce the arbitral award and supplementary costs award was granted, with interest fixed at 3% in accordance with the contract and applicable statutory rates.

Following the dismissal of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The defendants had succeeded on one of four principal issues, resulting in partial success that justified a reduction in the plaintiff’s recoverable costs.

The court considered the proportional success of the parties and the relative time and resources expended by counsel.

Applying reductions for both partial success and excessive docketed time, the court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable amount under Rule 57.01.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a commercial action alleging defective raw materials supplied for thermoplastic piping systems.

They argued the claims under an earlier supply agreement were barred by the Limitations Act and that liability disclaimers in later agreements excluded all contractual and tort liability.

The court held the limitation period for the indemnity claim had not expired because the claim arose only after the plaintiff was served with underlying litigation relating to the alleged defects.

While the contractual disclaimers were sufficient to exclude liability for negligence, they did not clearly exclude the statutorily implied condition of fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act.

The court also found that alleged post‑contractual conduct potentially modifying the agreements raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was therefore refused and the action allowed to proceed.

The appellant commenced a proposed class action asserting a statutory cause of action under s. 130 of the Securities Act for misrepresentations in a prospectus.

The motion judge found the claim was barred by the limitation period in s. 138 of the Securities Act and was not saved by the suspension of limitation periods in s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that a prior class action appeal did not encompass the s. 130 claim, meaning the suspension of the limitation period ended when the time to appeal the dismissal of that specific claim expired.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against mutual fund managers for permitting market timing, which allegedly caused losses to long-term investors.

The defendants had previously entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding the same conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the OSC proceedings were the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the OSC proceedings were regulatory and lacked participatory rights for investors, and therefore did not fulfill the access to justice goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was deemed the preferable procedure.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting declaratory relief that limited the respondent's obligation to indemnify the appellant for royalties payable under a net smelter return royalty agreement.

The trial judge found the indemnification obligation was limited to a flat rate of 0.013% NSR, as indicated in the schedules to the purchase agreements, rather than the sliding scale royalty actually required by the underlying agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's conclusion that the specific references to the 0.013% NSR rate reflected the parties' intention and overrode general references to assuming all obligations.

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 appellants brought a class action for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The respondent company made an initial public offering with a prospectus containing a sales forecast.

Before the offering closed, internal analysis showed sales lagging due to unseasonably warm weather, but this was not disclosed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the company had no obligation to disclose the intra-quarterly results because they did not amount to a 'material change' under the Act.

The Court also held that the Business Judgment Rule does not apply to statutory disclosure obligations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants sought costs of the appeal and trial on a partial indemnity basis following their success.

The respondent argued for no costs, asserting the class proceeding raised a novel point of law and involved a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the litigation was a commercial dispute between sophisticated actors involving established principles.

The court awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $100,000 plus GST to both the individual and corporate appellants, along with disbursements, and ordered trial costs to be assessed on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Securities Act.

The trial judge had held that the appellants had a continuing obligation to disclose poor intra-quarterly financial results before the closing of their initial public offering, and that their failure to do so rendered an implied representation of objective reasonableness in their financial forecast false.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Act distinguishes between material facts and material changes, and imposes no continuing obligation to disclose material facts after a prospectus receipt is issued.

The Court further held that the trial judge erred in implying a representation of objective reasonableness and in failing to apply the business judgment rule to management's assessment of the forecast.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claims regarding interests in an estate under the doctrine of mutual wills, constructive trust, and as beneficiaries of a family trust.

The trial judge found no agreement to execute mutual wills and upheld the trustee's encroachment on the trust in favour of another beneficiary, finding it was done in good faith to protect family businesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's detailed findings of fact and credibility assessments were well supported by the evidence and no palpable and overriding error was demonstrated.

Following an appeal, the court received written submissions regarding the quantum of costs.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the appeal involved a novel issue of law or public interest, but agreed that the respondents' claimed costs were excessive.

Costs were fixed on a partial-indemnity basis at $15,000 payable to each of the two respondent groups.

The appellant, an investor who purchased shares in the secondary market, sought to certify a class proceeding against the issuer, underwriters, and auditors for negligent misrepresentation in a prospectus.

The motions judge dismissed the action, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they did not establish a special relationship giving rise to a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the pleadings lacked material facts to support a duty of care owed to secondary market purchasers by the auditors or underwriters.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them liable for losses in a short sale margin account.

The primary debtor opened the account and the co-appellant guaranteed it.

The appellants argued the investment dealer owed a fiduciary duty to the guarantor and breached a duty of full disclosure by failing to disclose that the primary debtor had not posted the required margin security.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that there was no fiduciary relationship and that the non-disclosure was not material, as the guarantor knew the account was in a loss position and that he was securing that loss.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for inducing breach of contract on a motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge correctly applied the governing principles for summary judgment and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants appealed an order directing that a certification motion in a class proceeding be heard in Hamilton based on the balance of convenience.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that rule 37.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to determine the venue of a certification motion and that section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 does not oust that rule.

The court further held that the balance of convenience is not the proper test for granting leave under rule 37.03(4) to hear a motion elsewhere.