Kevin O’Brien

This case conference endorsement outlines procedural progress in a complex, multi-party construction litigation involving Carillion Construction Inc., the City of Toronto, and NORR Limited, among others.

The court addressed the schedule for executive discoveries, ruling that they must proceed as planned, contrary to the City's submission.

It also confirmed the mediation schedule for March-April 2019, involving various claimants and insurers.

Further directions were given regarding documentary production by subcontractors and the City's amended third-party claim against Metrolinx, setting deadlines for Metrolinx's response or motion.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $125 million defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the successful defendants sought full indemnity costs of over $650,000 pursuant to s. 137.1(7).

The plaintiff argued for no costs or modest partial indemnity costs, noting the claim had substantial merit but was dismissed because the defendants had a potentially valid defence.

Balancing the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs against the close nature of the ruling, the court awarded costs to the defendants on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $500,000.

The appellant sought to bring a class action against BP for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act.

The motion judge found that eleven of fourteen alleged misrepresentations were statute-barred under the three-year limitation period in section 138.14 of the Act.

The appellant argued that section 138.3(6), which permits the court to treat multiple misrepresentations as a single misrepresentation, should extend the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 138.3(6) does not modify the event-triggered limitation period and was enacted to limit, not expand, liability.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff's proposed class action claims for secondary market misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act were statute-barred.

The court found that 11 of the 14 alleged misrepresentations occurred more than three years before the action was commenced and were therefore statute-barred under s. 138.14.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that s. 138.3(6) could save the claims by treating them as a single continuous misrepresentation.

However, the court found that the remaining three misrepresentation claims were not necessarily statute-barred, as the plaintiff had served a notice of motion for leave before the limitation period expired, allowing for potential reliance on the nunc pro tunc doctrine.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's consolidated fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The claim arose from the procurement process for the Pan/ParaPan American Games Athletes' Village, where the plaintiff alleged it was wrongfully excluded from participating in the winning bid's financing.

The court struck several claims, including breach of the term sheet, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and a novel 'public law claim', without leave to amend.

Claims for breach of an oral agreement and misfeasance in public office were struck with leave to amend.

Claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the private defendants and the Crown agency were allowed to stand.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's consolidated fresh as amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The action arose from the procurement process for the Pan/ParaPan American Games Athletes' Village, where the plaintiff alleged it was wrongfully excluded from participating in the winning bid's financing.

The court struck several claims, including breach of the term sheet, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against the Crown, without leave to amend.

The claim for breach of an oral agreement was struck with leave to amend to provide better particulars.

The claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation against the private defendants and Infrastructure Ontario were allowed to proceed.

A contractor commenced a $205 million action against a public transit authority arising from a major subway expansion contract.

The authority moved under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for determination of a contractual clause prohibiting litigation until the contractor’s final invoice had been processed, and sought a stay under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that interpretation of the clause was a pure question of contractual interpretation suitable for determination on a Rule 21 motion.

The provision was enforceable between sophisticated commercial parties and clearly prohibited commencing an action before the contractual triggering event.

As the triggering event had not yet occurred, the action was stayed pending its occurrence.

The applicant sought an order under s. 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 referring a contractual dispute to arbitration under a specific multi‑party arbitration procedure contained in a power supply contract.

The respondent agreed the dispute should proceed to arbitration but argued that a different contractual arbitration clause governed, requiring a single arbitrator to determine issues of contractual interpretation before any broader arbitration process could be triggered.

The court interpreted the contract as containing both a universal arbitration clause for general disputes and a limited clause applicable only if certain economic conditions were established.

The court held the dispute concerned interpretation of the agreement and therefore fell within the general arbitration clause.

The motion was dismissed and the matter directed to proceed before a sole arbitrator.

The court determined costs following a motion concerning whether a proceeding could continue as a representative action under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Success on the underlying motion was divided: the moving party succeeded on the central issue that the action could proceed as a representative proceeding meeting the test analogous to certification under the Class Proceedings Act, but the responding parties succeeded on issues including that only individual union members, not the union itself, could act as representative plaintiffs and that particulars were required for a negligent misrepresentation claim.

Applying the factors in Rule 57, including relative success, complexity, and conduct of the parties, the court concluded that the moving party was overall more successful.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting divided success and certain pleading deficiencies.