Kent E. Thomson

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

The plaintiff commenced an action regarding a stream of royalty payments from a mine in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim.

In response, the plaintiff delivered an amended statement of claim.

The defendants moved to declare the amended claim a nullity, arguing it could not be amended without leave in the face of a motion to strike.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend.

The court held that while leave is required to amend a claim in the face of a motion to strike, the motion for leave should be heard first.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not time-barred, did not withdraw admissions, and were sufficiently particularized.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its decision on an appeal concerning leave to proceed under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appellants had challenged the motion judge's denial of leave for certain alleged financial misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in principle on this central issue, remitting it for redetermination.

As the appellants were substantially successful on the appeal, they were awarded $60,000 in all-inclusive costs for the appeal.

The costs of the original motion for leave were deferred to the judge determining the remitted issue.

The moving parties, subcontractors on a mining project, sought leave to intervene in an application brought by the project owners to set aside an arbitral award in favour of the general contractor.

The arbitral award included damages for the subcontractors' lost profits and standby charges.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding that the subcontractors' financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a legal interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, which concerned the construction of the contracts between the owners and the general contractor.

The court also held that the subcontractors would not make a useful contribution to the issues on the application.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the February 12, 2021 decision of McEwen J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the January 11, 2021 decision of Boswell J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a securities class action, appealed a motion judge's order that granted leave for one misrepresentation claim but denied leave for others under the Ontario Securities Act.

The primary issues on appeal concerned the motion judge's approach to determining "public correction" of alleged misrepresentations, particularly by assuming falsity and applying a narrow textual analysis without considering market context.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle by not engaging in a reasoned consideration of evidence regarding how alleged public corrections would be understood in the secondary market.

The Court remitted the issues of leave for capital expense/scheduling and accounting/financial reporting misrepresentations back to the lower court for redetermination, while upholding the denial of leave for certain environmental misrepresentations due to chronology issues.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The plaintiff pension fund sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a $3 billion secondary market securities class action against the defendant mining company.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations in three categories: capital expenditure and scheduling, environmental compliance, and accounting and financial reporting.

The court dismissed the motion for leave regarding the capital expenditure and accounting allegations, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the public correction requirement.

However, the court granted leave to proceed with one core environmental allegation, finding a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff could establish at trial that the defendant's July 26, 2012 representation about the completion of a water management system was an untrue statement of material fact.

Mangrove Partners applied for a joint hearing before the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding a proposed transaction between TransAlta Corporation and Brookfield.

TransAlta brought a motion arguing the OSC should decline to hear the application due to an insufficient nexus with Ontario.

The OSC found that while it had jurisdiction, there were no compelling circumstances to warrant exercising it concurrently with the ASC, which was the principal regulator and had stronger connections to the dispute.

The OSC declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the application.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.

This addendum corrects an error in a previous costs decision (2018 ONSC 4862) regarding the amount of costs requested by Brewers Retail Inc. The original decision mistakenly stated Brewers Retail requested $600,000 on a partial indemnity basis, when the correct amount, based on an amended bill of costs, was $744,396.42, all inclusive, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court confirmed the costs award subject to this correction.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totalling approximately $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued that the costs should be reduced to $600,000 in the aggregate, asserting that the case was not complex, was in the public interest, raised novel points of law, and that a large costs award would have a chilling effect on class actions.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the litigation was primarily commercial, involved complex issues, and that the normal costs rules should apply.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs, subject to a reduction of one expert witness's fee.

The applicant and its affiliates carried out a series of transactions in December 2007 designed to realize a tax loss to offset unrealized foreign exchange gains in the same taxation year.

The Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the claimed loss on the basis that section 98(5) of the Income Tax Act applied, rendering the transaction a tax-deferred rollover.

The applicant sought court orders to retroactively alter the transaction to achieve its intended tax purpose, relying on rectification and equitable jurisdiction to relieve against mistakes.

The application judge granted the order, but the Supreme Court's decision in Fairmont Hotels restricted rectification to written agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the court will not exercise its equitable jurisdiction to retroactively alter corporate transactions to achieve tax objectives, whether characterized as rectification or relief from mistake.

The court also rejected rescission as an available remedy, finding it was not a voluntary disposition but a commercial contract, and that rescission is an all-or-nothing remedy that cannot be used for partial unwinding to achieve a specific tax outcome.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action.

The respondents were entirely successful on appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

West Face Capital Inc. sought $250,000 in costs while Brandon Moyse sought $149,905.18.

The appellant argued for reduced costs amounts.

The Court of Appeal awarded West Face $200,000 and Moyse $100,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the respondents' complete success, the nature of the appeal involving a large record and detailed factual re-litigation, and costs thrown away due to an unnecessary adjournment.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action for misuse of confidential information and spoliation.

The appellant alleged that the respondent West Face Capital Inc. improperly obtained and used confidential information about the appellant's bid to acquire WIND Mobile Inc., allegedly obtained from a former employee who moved to West Face.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding that the appellant failed to prove that confidential information was provided to West Face or that any such information was used in West Face's successful competing bid.

The trial judge also found that the appellant's choice to terminate negotiations due to a break fee demand, rather than West Face's competing bid, caused the failure of the appellant's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment and dismissed the appeal, as well as the application for leave to appeal the costs orders.

Following a successful defence in a wrongful dismissal trial, the defendant sought costs of approximately $750,000.

The plaintiff argued for $500,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting that while the electronic trial was efficient, both sides engaged in overkill and over-representation.

The court reduced the defendant's claimed fees slightly and awarded costs of $725,651.30 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, a former Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Royal Group, Inc., sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming approximately $6.6 million in damages.

The defendant employer argued cause for dismissal based on the plaintiff's involvement in two instances of serious misconduct: the "Vaughan West land flip" and the misappropriation of a "Premdor warrant." Both involved the plaintiff's participation in schemes where senior officers, including himself, made secret profits at the corporation's expense and failed to disclose these conflicts of interest to the independent board of directors.

The court found that the plaintiff, as a fiduciary and senior employee, breached his duties of loyalty, honesty, candour, and fidelity by facilitating the usurpation of corporate opportunities, taking corporate funds without proper authority, and actively participating in deceptive practices, including back-dating documents for tax purposes.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that his conduct constituted just cause for summary dismissal, emphasizing the strictness of fiduciary duties in public corporations.