Justyna Boroch Hidalgo

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., the applicant sought an order declaring Bedrock Industries Canada LLC as the Successful Bidder under a sales and investment solicitation process.

The applicant also sought authorization to enter into a Plan Sponsor Agreement and a support agreement with the Province of Ontario.

Several parties, including a union local, the City of Hamilton, and individual retirees, objected to the motion, raising concerns about pensions, taxes, and the fairness of the proposed transaction.

The court granted the requested relief, finding that the proposed transaction was the best available option, the agreements were necessary to facilitate the restructuring, and the rights of the objecting parties to vote on or oppose the ultimate plan of arrangement were preserved.

A federal Crown corporation applied for a declaration that a municipal by-law regulating the placement of community mailboxes and imposing a permit requirement and moratorium was invalid.

The court held the by-law was void for vagueness because it provided no intelligible standards guiding the director’s discretion over permit approvals.

The by-law also conflicted with federal legislation and regulations governing postal services, frustrating the federal purpose of enabling efficient mail delivery.

Applying constitutional doctrines including paramountcy, interjurisdictional immunity, and federal Crown immunity, the court found the municipality had impermissibly intruded into the federal jurisdiction over postal services.

The by-law was therefore inoperative and of no force or effect in relation to community mailboxes.

The appellant appealed four orders striking out his Statements of Claim against the City of Hamilton and the Government of Ontario.

The claims involved allegations of failure to fund employment assistance programs, failure to ensure a competitive job market, and requests for the legislature to enact laws addressing alleged abuses of power.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judges that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action or were outside the purview of the courts.

The appeals were dismissed.

A construction contractor sued a municipality for damages arising from delay in authorizing work after the contractor’s tender was accepted for a landfill leachate system project.

The court held that the municipality was responsible for two overlapping periods of delay: the late communication of the contract award and the municipality’s failure to resolve whether the contractor’s proposed construction methodology formed part of the contract.

Interpreting the tender documents, the court concluded that the methodology submission was required to be incorporated into the contract and that the contractor was justified in insisting upon its inclusion before commencing work.

The delays forced a split construction schedule and caused financial losses including lost revenue, escalation costs, refinancing expenses, and equipment rentals.

Damages were assessed using the plaintiff’s expert methodology and awarded accordingly.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Hamilton's decision not to process an application for the renewal of a body rub parlour licence.

The licence had automatically terminated under the municipal by-law when the controlling interest in the applicant corporation was transferred following the death of its principal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the automatic termination constituted a lawful revocation under the by-law, which permanently reduced the number of available licences and left the City with no authority to issue a new one.