Kevin O’Brien

The plaintiff, Carillion Construction Inc., brought a motion to compel answers to a refused question during the "executive discovery" of the City of Toronto's representative.

The question sought disclosure of all relevant facts known by a key City employee, Jelena Rekalic, or relayed by her to others or counsel.

The City argued that such communications were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad request for "every fact" conveyed by Ms. Rekalic would improperly trench upon privilege and effectively constitute a second discovery without leave, which is not permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court addressed costs and interest following a prior judgment on share valuation.

Due to mixed results and the inherent unpredictability of share valuation, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs, including expert fees.

On the issue of interest, the court determined that the discretion to award interest to dissenting shareholders under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) was not curtailed by the corporation's ability to pay.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at the prescribed rate of 0.8% from the date of the statutory offer (May 11, 2017) to the date of the judgment, with postjudgment interest thereafter, on the determined share values for the dissenting shareholders.

The plaintiffs, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC), Leah Lawrence, and Jane Pagel, brought a motion for summary judgment against Kim Sigurdson for defamation and sought a permanent injunction.

Sigurdson had made numerous public statements accusing the plaintiffs of illegal acts, unethical conduct, racism, and fraud, primarily in an attempt to force settlement of his consulting fee claims.

The defendant failed to provide evidence to support his allegations, relying on the defense of justification.

The court found the statements defamatory, rejected the defenses of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege due to lack of evidence and malice.

Damages were awarded to the plaintiffs, and a permanent injunction was issued to prevent further defamatory publications.

The applicant company sought to fix the fair market value of common shares held by dissenting shareholders who opposed amendments to create convertible preferred shares.

The court rejected the applicant's liquidation approach to valuation, instead valuing the company as an ongoing concern using the discounted cash flow (DCF) method.

The court determined that a three-month time delay in the commencement of projected cash flows was appropriate, balancing the company's straightened financial circumstances with its ongoing viability.

The "en bloc" fair market value was fixed at $12,300,000, resulting in a per share value of $0.304.

In a complex mega-litigation concerning the Union Station construction project, Metrolinx, as a third party, brought a motion for particulars against the City of Toronto's amended third-party claim.

Metrolinx sought more specific details, particularly regarding the itemization and quantification of damages, arguing it needed this information to plead its defence and assess its exposure for mediation.

The City argued that the requested information constituted evidence, not particulars, and would be provided through expert reports during discovery.

The court dismissed Metrolinx's motion, holding that the City's pleading provided sufficient material facts for Metrolinx to plead, and that detailed quantification of damages and evidence of specific incidents were matters for discovery, not the pleading stage, especially in complex litigation.

This endorsement from a case conference provides updates on the progress of multiple consolidated actions.

Key discussions included the status of document production between Carillion and the City of Toronto, scheduled motions by the City against subcontractors for document production, and a hearing for construction lien matters.

The endorsement also addressed NORR Limited's statement of claim against the City, the participation of various subcontractors in mediation, and Metrolinx's contemplation of motions for particulars and to strike against the City's third-party claim.

The court set a timeline for Metrolinx to decide on its participation in the upcoming mediation, contingent on the outcome of its motion for particulars.

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.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The defendants, three major tobacco manufacturers, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, tobacco growers, brought class actions alleging the defendants breached agreements by paying lower export prices for tobacco that was subsequently smuggled back into Canada.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred as the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the claims more than six years prior.

The motion judge found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiffs discovered the defendants' complicity in the smuggling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the defendants' involvement in smuggling was an essential element of the claim and that its discoverability required a trial.

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 appellant appealed from an order dismissing its motion to stay or dismiss a proposed Ontario class proceeding for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The respondent, an Ontario resident, had purchased the issuer's shares on the New York Stock Exchange, and a parallel securities proceeding based on substantially the same alleged misrepresentations was already underway in the United States.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the alleged statutory tort was committed in Ontario where disclosure documents were required to reach Ontario shareholders.

However, applying comity-based forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded Ontario should decline jurisdiction over foreign-exchange claims because the U.S. and U.K. regimes tie jurisdiction to the place of trading, parallel proceedings already existed, and Ontario jurisdiction would be opportunistic in light of negligible Canadian trading.

The appellants appealed an order granting the Ottawa Police Association a conditional representation order under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The underlying action involved 74 police officers who transferred from the OPP to the Ottawa Police Services Board and alleged negligent misrepresentation regarding their pension transfers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 12.08 does not require an action to benefit all members of an association, nor is it limited to collective actions.

The court upheld the motion judge's findings on common issues and preferable procedure, confirming that a conditional order to substitute an appropriate representative plaintiff was permissible.

An Ontario resident brought a proposed securities class action against a U.K. issuer alleging secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The defendant moved to stay the action in part, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction over claims of investors who purchased securities on foreign exchanges and that the matter should proceed in U.S. or U.K. courts.

The court held that the statutory cause of action under s. 138.3 constitutes a statutory tort presumptively connected to Ontario where an Ontario investor is deemed to have relied on the misrepresentation.

The legislation did not restrict claims to purchases on Ontario exchanges, and the defendant failed to rebut the presumptive connecting factor.

The court further found the defendant did not establish that foreign courts were clearly more appropriate forums.

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.