Ken Rosenberg

The appellants, representing a class of Ontario Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees, appealed a summary judgment decision regarding their entitlement to Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Shoppers breached the 2002 franchise agreement by retaining the allowances, which constituted 'revenue', but did not breach the 2010 agreement, which explicitly allowed Shoppers to retain such concessions.

The Court also upheld the application of a rolling limitation period and the refusal to award aggregate damages due to the idiosyncratic nature of the profit-sharing model.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantification of damages, finding that Shoppers breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily allocating $129 million as out-of-province rebates to avoid sharing the funds with Ontario franchisees, bringing the total Professional Allowances received to $1.084 billion.

In this certified class action, the plaintiff franchisees (Associates) brought a motion for summary judgment against the franchisor, Shoppers Drug Mart, alleging breaches of contract, breaches of the duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment regarding various fees and the retention of Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

Shoppers brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, arguing they lacked merit and were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the Optimum Fee and Shoppers Charges, finding no breach of contract or bad faith.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim for Professional Allowances but found that Shoppers breached the 2002 Associates Agreement (but not the 2010 Agreement) by failing to remit Professional Allowances to the Associates.

The court held that aggregate damages were not viable and directed that the surviving breach of contract and distribution centre claims proceed to individual issues trials, subject to limitation periods.

In a certified class action by franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart regarding the retention of professional allowances, the plaintiffs brought a discovery motion seeking to compel answers to refused questions, to examine three non-party former employees, and to obtain documentary production from two non-party generic drug manufacturers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had already provided sufficient information to allow the plaintiffs to argue their case, and that further discovery would be irrelevant and disproportionate.

The court ordered a limited search for documents related to 'over and above' amounts but otherwise denied the relief sought.

The Applicants, under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking an order to authorize and approve the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment.

The motion was opposed by the USW and GIP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the DIP solicitation process was competitive, robust, and fair, and that the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment was the best available proposal.

The amendment addressed previous concerns by providing a maturity date past the winter build period, a sufficient commitment amount, and minimal conditions on covenants.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of Shoppers Drug Mart, brought a proposed class action alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the franchisor's retention of rebates and professional allowances, and its practices regarding cost recovery fees, budgeting, and inventory.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court struck the claims for rebates, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with association, and duty of disclosure, finding them untenable based on the clear language of the franchise agreements.

However, the court allowed the claims regarding professional allowances, cost recovery fees, budgeting practices, and inventory practices to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious they would fail.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a proposed class action against the defendants regarding foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants charged undisclosed, unnecessary, and unauthorized foreign exchange fees when converting foreign currency to Canadian dollars in RRSPs and other registered accounts.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all five criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including disclosing causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.