Julie Mouris

The defendant insurance company brought a motion to quash a summons to examine an employee (an insurance adjuster) for a pending motion to compel answers to discovery refusals and to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought to examine the adjuster to test the relevance and proportionality of the defendant's broad production requests spanning forty years of documents related to historical sexual abuse claims.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the proposed examination was relevant to the underlying motion, necessary for fair adjudication, and not an abuse of process.

La décision porte sur une demande d’annulation d’une sentence arbitrale concernant l’interprétation et l’exécution d’un contrat verbal relatif à la répartition de lots dans le cadre du Projet Oasis.

La Cour conclut que l’arbitre a commis des erreurs de droit en annulant une ordonnance de la Cour supérieure et en liant une société non partie à l’arbitrage, mais que ces erreurs n’affectent pas le résultat.

La Cour confirme que la détention d’une licence Tarion/HCRA est une condition implicite du contrat et que le droit d’acheter les lots appartient à Maisons Lacroix, non à la requérante.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by S.D.M.O. Industries (Kohler-SDMO) and Kohler Co., who sought to stay proceedings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction or a forum selection clause favoring a French court.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction, the forum selection clause was not proven to be valid or applicable, and the motion judge made no reviewable error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought declarations that their removal as directors of the Niagara Regional Native Centre (NRNC) and the subsequent election of the individual respondents to the board in February 2023 were invalid due to governance irregularities and violations of the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act and NRNC By-Laws.

The court found the February 2023 election and the applicants' removal and membership termination invalid due to lack of proper notice, voting irregularities, and failure to comply with statutory and by-law requirements.

While acknowledging the invalidity, the court declined to reinstate the applicants or invalidate all acts of the subsequent board, instead ordering the current October 2023 board to continue until a properly conducted election, with specific protocols for membership and voting.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from catastrophic failures of emergency generators at a hospital.

Defendants SDMO and Kohler moved to stay proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction or that Ontario was not an appropriate forum.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter as the torts (property damage, failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation) occurred in the province.

The court also found the forum selection clause in the contract between SDMO and GAL Power was not properly before the court and would not apply to third parties or be enforceable against GAL Power.

Finally, the court determined Ontario was the most appropriate forum, considering the location of parties, witnesses, and evidence, and the existence of related proceedings.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant, a mid-sized dairy processor, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to invoice it retroactively at the highest class price for milk deliveries after multiple audits found its production records unreliable and unverifiable.

The appellant argued that the retroactive invoice constituted an unauthorized penalty under the Milk Act and that DFO lacked authority to impose it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 24 of DFO General Regulation 10/17 authorizes DFO to charge the highest class price when a processor fails to provide verifiable milk utilization declarations.

The Tribunal also held that the surcharge was not a penalty but a mechanism to ensure fair compensation to dairy farmers.

Finally, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a prior settlement agreement between the parties.

The applicant, a Major-General in the Canadian Armed Forces, sought judicial review regarding his removal from a secondment at the Public Health Agency of Canada, alleging political interference.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that it was premature.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike, holding that the applicant must first exhaust the internal military grievance process provided by section 29 of the National Defence Act, and that the allegations of political interference did not constitute exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the administrative process.

The applicant, the Mayor of Hawkesbury, sought an interlocutory stay of a municipal council decision regarding potential sanctions following an Integrity Commissioner's report finding she breached the Code of Conduct.

She also sought a sealing order for certain documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the statutory requirement that such reports be made public.

The request for a sealing order was also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application.

The respondent, The Kraft Heinz Company, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that they had made a more favourable offer to settle and that the applicant, The Corporation of the Township of South Stormont, had been less than fully candid.

The Township conceded costs but disputed the substantial indemnity scale, arguing the offer was not Rule 49 compliant and denying any sanctionable conduct.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the offer not sufficiently fixed or understandable for Rule 49.10 consequences and no conduct worthy of sanction.

The court also found the time claimed by both sides somewhat excessive and the hourly rates suggested by the respondent's counsel too high for the Ottawa region.

The applicant municipality sought an order to recommence an arbitration and appoint a new arbitrator to resolve a dispute over wastewater treatment costs.

The parties had previously executed Minutes of Settlement that included a specific dispute resolution process for issues arising from data collection.

The court found that the current dispute regarding allegedly flawed data fell squarely within the contemplation of the settlement agreement.

The application was dismissed, and the matter was directed to the specific individual granted exclusive jurisdiction under the settlement.

The Tribunal convened a pre-hearing conference to address allegations that counsel breached a prior confidentiality order regarding restricted access motions.

The Tribunal found no intentional disclosures of confidential material by either party.

To ensure clarity moving forward, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering that all materials related to the restricted access request, including third-party materials, remain confidential and sealed.

The Tribunal also established a formal motion process for third parties seeking participant or intervenor status on the restricted access motion.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a binding settlement agreement reached on May 17, 2019, to resolve an oppression remedy and wrongful dismissal claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants unilaterally modified a term regarding the share acquisition structure and failed to act in good faith.

The court found a legally binding agreement existed, which explicitly granted the defendants the prerogative to consider an alternative share acquisition structure and agree to it only if persuaded it was tax advantageous or neutral to them.

The court determined that the defendants had fulfilled their obligation by consulting their accountant and deciding against the alternative structure.

The court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding the settlement was reasonable and just.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) provide the Tribunal with eleven categories of documents pursuant to subsection 16(7) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal interpreted subsection 16(7) as requiring the regulatory decision-maker to forward the essential elements of the decision-making record, not to provide broad documentary discovery.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had already discharged its statutory obligation by providing the relevant audit reports, correspondence, and board minutes that informed its decision.

The motion was dismissed as an improper attempt at broad documentary discovery.

The Appellants appealed a decision classifying their farm as unsanitary non-Grade A and shutting it off from the milk market after they refused to allow a Grade A inspection.

The Respondent brought a motion to refuse to hear the appeal under subsection 16(4) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and not made in good faith.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no legal merit, as market access requires compliance with inspection laws, and was brought for the improper purpose of harassing officials.

The Tribunal refused to hear the appeal and awarded $7,500 in costs against the Appellants for their unacceptable conduct.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's decision refusing to dismiss a defamation action under the Anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents, a cigarette manufacturer and its CEO, sued over a magazine article published by the appellants that connected them to organized crime, terrorism, and tobacco smuggling.

The motion judge found the action had substantial merit, that no valid defences existed, and that the harm to the respondents outweighed the public interest in protecting the appellants' expression.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in balancing public interests, in assessing harm without evidence of financial loss, and in rejecting the justification defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision.

The plaintiff brought a refusals motion to compel the defendant, Hockey Canada, to answer questions and produce documents related to its insurance policy and claims history.

The plaintiff, a former high-performance athlete, suffered quadriplegia and alleged Hockey Canada breached its duty to procure adequate insurance.

The court ordered Hockey Canada to produce un-redacted claims bordereaux and other reports, finding they were not protected by litigation or settlement privilege and that post-incident information could be relevant as remedial conduct.

However, the court required the plaintiff to serve notice on non-parties if seeking disclosure of their personal health information.

The defendants previously brought an unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' $27 million defamation action regarding a publication about contraband tobacco.

The plaintiffs, as the successful responding parties, sought costs for the motion.

The court considered the presumption under section 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act, which states that a successful responding party is not entitled to costs unless appropriate in the circumstances.

Finding that the motion was not frivolous, involved matters of public interest, and lacked inappropriate behaviour by the defendants, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption.

No costs were awarded.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiffs' $27 million defamation action as a SLAPP suit.

The plaintiffs, who own a large tobacco manufacturing company, sued over a magazine publication alleging they smuggled contraband tobacco and were associated with organized crime.

The court found the publication related to a matter of public interest but concluded the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit and the defendants failed to establish valid defences of justification, responsible communication, qualified privilege, or fair comment.

The motion to dismiss was denied.