Katherine L. Kay

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a cost award made by the motions judge following the certification of their class proceeding.

The plaintiffs argued the motions judge ignored established principles, such as costs following the event and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and improperly applied the principle of access to justice to the defendants.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion, considering all relevant factors and principles, and that there was no conflicting decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $77,362 for the motion for leave to appeal, the motion to expedite the appeals, and the appeals.

The Court of Appeal noted that the arguments were similar to those advanced before the motion judge and the Divisional Court.

The Court fixed the respondents' costs on a partial indemnity scale at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellants.

The appellants, a restaurant franchisor and its food distributor, appealed a Divisional Court decision certifying a class action brought by former franchisees.

The franchisees alleged the appellants engaged in a price maintenance scheme, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract by charging exorbitant prices for supplies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the certification, finding that the motion judge erred by focusing too heavily on the individual nature of damages and failing to recognize that the breach of the Competition Act, conspiracy, and breach of contract claims constituted valid common issues.

The court also affirmed that aggregate damages provisions under the Class Proceedings Act could potentially be utilized at trial.

The respondent previously succeeded on an appeal declaring that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.

The resulting order included a paragraph directing compliance with the agreement, which the motion judge subsequently interpreted as requiring the appellants to assert their repudiation claim in a new action rather than as an excuse for non-performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal, finding that the original panel had not considered the disputed paragraph or its implications for the repudiation claim.

The court set aside the motion judge's order and directed the parties to submit their questions directly to the original panel for clarification.

The appellant franchisees appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent franchisor and distributors.

The appellants alleged price maintenance under the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract regarding mark-ups and sourcing fees for supplies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by focusing exclusively on the individualized nature of damages and failing to recognize that the breach of the Competition Act, breach of contract, and the fact of loss were common issues.

The Court conditionally certified the class action, concluding it was the preferable procedure to achieve judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The appellants, minority shareholders of Asbestos Corporation Limited, commenced an action in Ontario in 1987 for an oppression remedy and other relief following the takeover of the corporation by the Province of Quebec.

The appellants did not pursue the Ontario action until 2003, after exhausting five other proceedings in different forums.

The motion judge dismissed the action for delay and, in the alternative, stayed it on the basis of forum non conveniens and abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in her conclusions that the delay was inexcusable, Quebec was the more appropriate forum, and the attempt to relitigate issues already decided elsewhere constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached during mediation of a defamation action.

The motion judge had found the agreement was conditional on further elaboration of the words 'disparage' and 'scientific' based on the respondents' subjective intent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on subjective intent rather than an objective reading of the written offer.

Viewed objectively, the written offer contained all essential terms and was not conditional.

The court declared the settlement agreement enforceable.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering them to pay the respondent for the redemption of preference shares.

The appellants argued that an oral collateral agreement delayed the payment obligations until the completion of a separate share sale, and that the respondent's interference in that sale justified equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged collateral agreement contradicted the clear terms of the written redemption agreement and guarantee, which included an entire agreement clause.

The court also found that equitable set-off was expressly precluded by the guarantee and that the motions judge did not exceed her jurisdiction in granting summary judgment.