John B. Laskin

The Court held Yukon breached the Chapter 11 modern treaty land-use planning process by making major final-stage changes not properly proposed earlier and not grounded in changing circumstances.

Yukon’s approval was quashed, and the parties were returned to the s. 11.6.3.2 stage.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s approach of resetting the process to an earlier stage and emphasized judicial restraint with robust legality review in modern treaty implementation.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision dated June 30, 2017.

The appellants (Iranian government entities) appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most appeals but allowed appeals in actions commenced by certain respondents, striking those actions.

The court awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the appellants' argument that no costs should be awarded due to novel issues and declining to award substantial indemnity costs or costs to respondents whose actions were struck.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the City of Burlington against Burlington Airpark Inc. The parties agreed to fix the costs of the appeal at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

However, they disagreed on the costs of the underlying application.

The respondent Airpark sought partial indemnity costs of $149,917.90, while the application judge had awarded the successful City substantial indemnity costs of $118,327.53.

The Court of Appeal determined that while Airpark was entitled to costs of the application despite adverse findings, an award of partial indemnity costs 25% higher than the substantial indemnity costs incurred by the successful applicant was unreasonable.

The Court fixed Airpark's costs at $80,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants (Iran and related entities) appealed orders of the Superior Court of Justice recognizing and enforcing U.S. judgments obtained by victims of terrorism against Iran for its sponsorship of terrorist attacks.

The respondents sought to enforce these judgments in Ontario under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA) and amendments to the State Immunity Act (SIA).

Iran challenged the recognition and enforcement of the judgments on multiple grounds, including arguments regarding state immunity, the temporal scope of the JVTA, proof requirements, limitation periods, jurisdiction, public policy, diplomatic immunity, and the appropriateness of costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Iran's appeal, save for judgments arising from terrorist attacks that occurred prior to January 1, 1985, which could not be enforced under the JVTA.

An aerodrome operator appealed an order requiring it to file a permit application under a new municipal by-law for fill and site alteration work performed before the by-law was enacted.

The court considered whether the by-law could be applied retroactively to work completed under a prior regulatory regime.

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the by-law had no retroactive effect and could not be applied to work performed before its enactment.

Following the dismissal of Iran's motions to set aside default judgments and a Mareva injunction, the plaintiffs sought costs.

Iran argued it was immune from costs orders under the State Immunity Act and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

The court held that Iran was not immune from costs and awarded the plaintiffs costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the claimed amounts reasonable given the complexity and high stakes of the proceedings.

This endorsement addresses the approval of class counsel fees, plaintiffs' costs, defendants' costs, and the Law Foundation of Ontario's levy following a decade-long class action concerning the legality of Par account transactions (PATs) by London Life and Great-West Life.

The court approved class counsel fees of $16.4 million, found the plaintiffs entitled to $4 million in partial indemnity costs from the defendants, and denied the defendants' claim for costs.

It also determined that the Law Foundation of Ontario was entitled to a levy of $1,520,346.50 (repayment of disbursements) plus 10% of the net monetary award ($4,030,000), totaling $5,550,346.50, to be paid from the participating accounts.

The court clarified that a "monetary award" for the purposes of the Class Proceedings Act and the Law Society Act includes funds paid to the benefit of class members through participating accounts, even if not directly distributed to individuals.

This appeal considered whether a municipal notice of reserve that blocked construction at a federally approved antenna site was constitutionally valid.

The majority held the notice’s pith and substance was the siting of radiocommunication infrastructure, an exclusive federal matter, making it ultra vires.

The Court also held the measure significantly impaired the federal core protected by interjurisdictional immunity.

The appeal was allowed and the notice was unconstitutional and inapplicable to the appellant.

The plaintiffs, victims of terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, sought to enforce U.S. judgments against Iran in Ontario under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (JVTA).

Iran brought motions to set aside or stay the default judgments and a Mareva injunction, arguing state and diplomatic immunity, limitation periods, and public policy.

The court dismissed Iran's motions, finding that the State Immunity Act and JVTA removed Iran's jurisdictional and enforcement immunity, the actions were not statute-barred, and the U.S. judgments met the criteria for recognition in Canada.

The court also granted summary judgment to the Bennett plaintiffs to enforce their U.S. judgment against Iran's non-diplomatic property in Ontario.

The applicants, International Steel Services Inc. (ISSI), sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Dynatec Madagascar S.A. (Dynatec), from interfering with ISSI's contractual rights under a Sulphuric Acid Plant Operation and Maintenance Agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the agreement was extended to September 27, 2018, as ISSI contended, or if it terminated on May 1, 2016, as Dynatec argued.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for injunctions, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the agreement's extension and Dynatec's termination notice.

It determined that ISSI faced a meaningful risk of irreparable harm to its business reputation and employee relations if Dynatec proceeded with its takeover plans.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured ISSI, noting Dynatec's "hardball tactics" and delay in facilitating arbitration.

The interim protective order was granted to ISSI, prohibiting Dynatec from interfering with ISSI's contractual rights and operation of the Acid Plant pending an arbitral decision.

The Court allowed the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal and set aside the divestiture order under s. 92 of the Competition Act.

A majority held the merger likely prevented competition substantially, but concluded the efficiencies defence in s. 96 succeeded because proven efficiency gains outweighed proven anti-competitive effects after the Commissioner failed to quantify quantifiable effects.

On a motion for directions in an application concerning settlement agreements related to the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, the moving parties sought broad documentary production from the federal government.

The court addressed disputes over the scope of relevance and proportionality in documentary disclosure within an application proceeding.

The court held that production must be limited to documents relevant and probative to interpreting the settlement agreements and their alleged ongoing obligations, rejecting requests for expansive historical government policy and legislative background materials.

The court provided guidance on specific document categories, directed the parties to exchange lists of litigation records from prior Canadian and U.S. proceedings, and required further review of settlement negotiation materials.

Directions were also given to narrow issues, schedule cross-examinations, and coordinate related proceedings.

The appeal concerned whether retail Internet service providers, when providing end-users with Internet access to requested programming, carry on broadcasting undertakings under the Broadcasting Act.

The court held that the statutory terms, read in light of the Act’s language and policy objectives, do not capture entities that merely provide a transmission mode without selecting, originating, or packaging content.

Prior authorities on transmission and conduit functions were treated as consistent with this interpretation, while precedent involving content control by cable licensees was distinguished.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that access-providing Internet service providers are not broadcasting undertakings in this context.