Katie Archibald

The respondent, Framatome Canada, moved to quash the appellant's appeal of an associate judge's order regarding document production, arguing the order was interlocutory and brought in the wrong court.

The appellant cross-moved to transfer the appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court agreed that the underlying order was interlocutory and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

However, rather than dismissing the appeal, the court granted the cross-motion to transfer the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

Costs of both motions were reserved to the judge hearing the appeal.

Following a five-week trial where the plaintiffs succeeded in claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought over $6.2 million on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' litigation conduct did not warrant such a sanction and the pre-litigation conduct was already addressed through punitive damages and disgorgement.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,200,000 for the action and $20,000 for the counterclaim, apportioning liability among the defendants based on the claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on the applicable exchange rate and prejudgment interest following a judgment where defendants were found to have breached fiduciary duties and conspired to conceal assets.

The court applied the default exchange rate under s. 121(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which mandates conversion at the date of payment, rejecting the defendants' argument for an earlier transaction date.

The court found that a change in exchange rate alone does not constitute inequity to depart from the default rule.

Prejudgment interest was awarded on the damages and disgorgement amounts from the date the cause of action arose (August 15, 2012), at a rate of 1.3%, in accordance with s. 128(1) of the CJA, excluding punitive damages.

The plaintiffs, founders of a venture capital fund, brought an action against their co-founders and a third-party purchaser for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conspiracy.

The court found that the co-founders secretly established a competing fund and conspired with the purchaser to acquire a portfolio company at a discounted price while concealing a valuable asset (the Tinder app).

The court awarded compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages against the defendants.

The Immunity Applicant Witnesses sought a declaration of informer privilege in an ongoing Competition Act inquiry into alleged price-fixing.

The Commissioner of Competition opposed, arguing that applying informer privilege would compromise the operation of the Immunity Program.

The court found that informer privilege attached to the witnesses from the outset of their participation in the Immunity Program due to broad confidentiality assurances.

However, the court also concluded that the witnesses had made a clear, express, and informed future waiver of this privilege, effective only if and when they are called to testify at a trial.

The application for informer privilege was granted, but with the condition of future waiver for trial testimony.