Jordan S.A. Moss

The applicants sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's Partial Award on questions of law pursuant to section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, or alternatively to set aside the award pursuant to section 46(1)6 on grounds of unequal treatment.

The arbitrator had awarded damages to the respondents in a commercial dispute arising from a share purchase agreement.

The court found that the arbitration agreement contained a clear bar to appeals on questions of law, making an appeal impossible.

The court also found that the applicants had failed to raise any pure questions of law.

The applicants' application was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the respondents in accordance with both the Partial Award and Final Award.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The appellant landlords re-entered the leased premises after the respondent tenants defaulted on rent.

The application judge found the re-entry wrongful due to a defective notice and premature action.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding that the landlords were entitled to re-enter based on a prior, continuing breach of the lease, specifically the failure to pay accelerated rent as per a non-waiver clause.

The Court emphasized that the landlords had not waived the breach by accepting partial payments.

The trial judge's order was set aside, and the original application dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement with certain defendants, class counsel fees and disbursements, and honorariums for the representative plaintiffs.

The settlement amount was $37 million.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, including dissolved corporate entities and limitations issues.

The court also approved the 30% contingency fee for class counsel and $50,000 honorariums for each representative plaintiff, recognizing their exceptional involvement and exposure to costs.

Apotex sought damages for breach of contract and negligence against MDS for deficient bioequivalence studies that the FDA ultimately rejected.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The trial judge found the action was timely, determining that discovery occurred on December 11, 2006, when Apotex learned the FDA would not accept the MDS studies.

The Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion but on different grounds, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until December 11, 2006, based on when Apotex knew that the breach had caused injury, loss or damage.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on breach of contract, mitigation, and damages.