Julie Kay Parla

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.

Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.

The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.

A land surveying company brought a class action on behalf of Ontario land surveyors whose plans of survey had been digitized, stored, and copied by the province's electronic land registry service provider without payment of royalties.

The appellant argued that Crown copyright under s. 12 of the Copyright Act did not vest in the registered and deposited plans.

The majority held that the comprehensive provincial land registration regime gave the Crown complete control over the publication process, satisfying the requirements of s. 12.

A concurring minority agreed on the outcome but adopted a different interpretive framework, requiring both that the work be published 'by or under the direction or control' of the Crown and that the work qualify as a 'government work' serving a public purpose.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The defendants, BNT Canada, L.P., BNT Canada GP, Inc., and Bechtel Power Corporation (collectively "Bechtel"), brought a motion to transfer the action from Walkerton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, Bruce Power L.P. and Bruce Power Inc. (collectively "Bruce Power"), opposed the motion.

The court applied a holistic approach to the factors enumerated in Rule 13.1.02(2)(b), finding that the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and the court, along with advantages for securing a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination, and the availability of judges and court facilities, favored Toronto.

The court concluded that Bechtel had met the onus of demonstrating that Toronto was "significantly better" and that the transfer was in the interest of justice.

The motion to transfer the action to Toronto was granted.

A class action appeal concerning copyright ownership in plans of survey registered or deposited in Ontario's electronic land registry system (ELRS).

The appellant land surveyors claimed that Teranet Inc., which operated the ELRS, infringed their copyright by digitizing, storing, and copying their survey plans.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that copyright in registered or deposited plans belonged to the Province of Ontario under section 12 of the Copyright Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that the provincial land registration scheme gave the Crown complete control over registered plans, and that the Crown's publication of those plans through the ELRS occurred under the Crown's direction or control, thereby vesting copyright in the Crown.

The defendants sought summary judgment in a medical negligence action, proposing to address causation and standard of care.

The case management judge, applying the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, assessed whether the proposed motion, requiring a mini-trial with extensive viva voce expert evidence, would be proportionate, timely, and affordable.

Given the complexity of competing medical opinions on delayed diagnosis and the effectiveness of antiviral treatment, the anticipated length of the mini-trial (7-10 days), and the unlikelihood of resolving all triable issues, the judge concluded that the motion would not meet the goals of efficient dispute resolution.

Consequently, the defendants' proposed summary judgment motion was denied, and the scheduled motion dates were vacated, with the judge remaining seized to schedule an early trial.

The plaintiff, Keatley Surveying Ltd., brought a class action against Teranet Inc., alleging copyright infringement for scanning, copying, and making available online plans of survey registered in Ontario's electronic land registry system.

Both parties moved for summary judgment on common issues, primarily concerning whether copyright in the plans belonged to the Province of Ontario under s. 12 of the Copyright Act upon registration or deposit.

The court held that while copyright subsisted in the plans, it belonged to the Province of Ontario pursuant to s. 12 of the Copyright Act, as a result of their registration or deposit in the land registry office, which transferred ownership of the property, including copyright, to the Crown.

Consequently, Teranet, acting under license from the province, did not infringe copyright.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the class action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify two actions as class proceedings for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 in relation to alleged price-fixing of DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices.

The actions alleged breach of Part IV of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with economic interests against numerous international semiconductor manufacturers.

Following earlier settlement with one defendant, additional settlements were reached with several defendants totaling substantial monetary payments and cooperation commitments.

The court held that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and approved certification for settlement purposes.

The court further determined that no additional opt‑out period was required because class members had already been provided a valid opportunity to opt out during the earlier settlement process.

The plaintiff surveying firm sought certification of a proposed class action alleging that the operator of Ontario’s electronic land registry system infringed surveyors’ copyright in registered plans of survey by scanning, storing, and selling digital copies through online portals.

The motion was brought under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that although a cause of action for copyright infringement was adequately pleaded (with the exception of allegations based on “translation” into digital formats), the plaintiff failed to satisfy the remaining certification criteria.

The proposed class definition was merits‑based and there was no evidence that two or more persons wished to pursue the claim.

The court also found that the proposed common issues were largely individualized, particularly regarding ownership of copyright and consent, and that a class proceeding would not be the preferable procedure.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling $143,891.09.

The plaintiff did not dispute liability for costs, the hours spent, the disbursements, or the hourly rates, but argued that proportionality required a reduction of professional fees to $75,000.

The court applied the governing principles of reasonableness and proportionality in assessing costs under rule 57.01(1).

Considering the five‑day trial, the complexity of the litigation, the parties’ settlement offers, and reasonable expectations, the court found the defendants’ claimed fees excessive.

Costs were fixed at $80,000 in fees plus $40,533.09 in disbursements.

In a certified class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices contrary to Part IV of the Competition Act and related torts, the representative plaintiffs sought court approval of a negotiated settlement with one defendant.

The settlement required the settling defendant to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec and to provide extensive cooperation in the ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The agreement also included a bar order preventing contribution and indemnity claims against the settling defendant while permitting discovery cooperation and proportional liability determinations at trial.

Applying established class action settlement approval principles, the court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The settlement approval order was granted.

The plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment after the defendants adopted a name she proposed in a response to a request for proposals for retail space at a casino complex.

The plaintiff asserted that she created the phrase used for the retail area and that the defendants later adopted it after rejecting her proposal.

The court found that the phrase originated from the historical and cultural terminology of the First Nation and was not an original creation of the plaintiff.

It also held that the name provided no financial or commercial benefit to the defendants and was offered gratuitously during the proposal process.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish enrichment, deprivation, or absence of juristic reason as required for unjust enrichment.