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 moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Kimmel J. dated June 18, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $6,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party, Unity Health, sought summary judgment to dismiss four actions brought by subcontractor plaintiffs, arguing that the plaintiffs' settlement with the surety (Zurich) constituted an inconsistent election that precluded their alternative claims against Unity Health.

Unity Health also sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims and, alternatively, to stay two of the actions for failure to immediately disclose the settlement.

The court dismissed the motions, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the doctrine of inconsistent election and the unjust enrichment claims.

The court also held that the settlement was disclosed in a timely manner once it was finalized, so a stay was not warranted.

Three lien claimants brought a motion in a receivership proceeding to determine the proper interpretation of s. 78(2) of the Construction Act regarding priority over building mortgages.

The claimants argued they were entitled to priority for the holdback deficiency against each building mortgage individually, effectively multiplying their priority amount.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the lien claimants' priority is limited to the extent of the single deficiency in the owner's holdback over all building mortgages combined, as multiplying the priority would be contrary to the statutory scheme and unfairly prejudice subsequent encumbrancers.

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.

The applicant, an incumbent biomedical waste disposal provider, challenged the award of a new primary supplier contract to a competitor.

The applicant alleged that the respondents engaged in bid repair and breached their duty of fairness by allowing the competitor to delay the implementation of services and assisting them with regulatory approvals post-award.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the duty of fairness to unsuccessful bidders ended once the contract was awarded, and that the post-award communications were operational in nature and did not constitute bid repair.

The court also rejected the argument that the respondents had irrevocably elected the applicant as the primary supplier by utilizing their services during the transition period.

The applicant sought judicial review of two orders issued by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) imposing sanctions and financial penalties for alleged non-compliance with Market Rules.

The applicant brought a motion to stay the orders pending judicial review, while the IESO brought a motion to quash the judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash regarding the IESO's jurisdiction to create the dispute resolution regime, finding it was not plain and obvious the application would fail.

However, the court granted the motion to quash regarding the allegation of structural bias, as the applicant had not exhausted the alternative remedies available.

The court granted the stay of the orders, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the respondent and moved for an interim stay.

The respondent indicated it would oppose the stay and move to quash the application for prematurity.

A case management conference was held to set a timetable for the exchange of materials and to schedule the motions to be heard together by videoconference.

Following the dismissal of the action against it, the defendant Covanta sought partial indemnity costs of $62,323.43 plus incidental costs of $312,887.85.

The plaintiff argued the amounts were excessive and that incidental costs were effectively a claim for damages.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding the incidental costs inappropriate for a summary costs motion and the legal fees excessive compared to the plaintiff's own costs outline.

The court fixed costs at $40,000 payable by the plaintiff to Covanta.

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 applicant, a former officer of a municipally-owned utility corporation, sought indemnity and advancement of legal costs for his participation in a judicial inquiry investigating the sale of the utility's shares.

The respondent corporation denied the request, arguing the inquiry was not a proceeding that triggered the indemnity bylaw and that allegations of possible misconduct precluded advancement.

The court held that the inquiry was a proceeding under the bylaw and that section 136 of the Business Corporations Act provided discretionary authority to order advancement of costs.

The court ordered the respondent to advance the applicant's legal costs for the ongoing phase of the inquiry, subject to repayment if the applicant is ultimately found not to have acted honestly and in good faith.

The moving party, an owner/contractor on a construction project, brought a motion under section 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action against it.

The plaintiff's construction lien had previously been vacated by the posting of security by the general contractor.

The court held that once a lien is vacated by the posting of security, the owner is no longer a proper party to the lien action as there is no privity of contract.

Furthermore, the court applied binding appellate authority to hold that claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit cannot be joined in a lien action under section 55(1) of the Act.

The motion was granted and the action against the moving party was dismissed.

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.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 34.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the responding parties to produce documents in advance of cross-examinations on affidavits sworn in support of the responding parties' summary judgment motions.

The responding parties argued the motion was prohibited under Rule 48.04(1) because the action had been set down for trial, and that the requests were disproportionate.

The court held that Rule 48.04(1) did not bar the motion and the moving party had not waived the right to documentary discovery.

However, because the responding parties had never served affidavits of documents, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice, directing the responding parties to first serve affidavits of documents so that relevance and proportionality could be properly assessed.

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 moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from an application judge's decision setting aside an arbitrator's ruling that added subcontractors as parties to an arbitration.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the arbitrator's decision to add parties was a question of jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

Pursuant to section 17(9) of the Act, no appeal lies from a court's decision on a question of an arbitrator's jurisdiction.

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.