Kiran Patel

The applicants (Representative Counsel for non-unionized employees and retirees, USW Locals 1005 and 8782, and the City of Hamilton) sought "for counsel's eyes only" disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement between United States Steel Corporation (USS), U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), and the Government of Canada.

The motion was brought in the context of CCAA proceedings, with applicants arguing procedural fairness and a minor exemption from settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced without access to the specific details of the undertakings in the agreement, or how the information was material to their claims or negotiations.

The court emphasized that there is no exemption from settlement privilege for the purpose of reviewing a document to determine if a public interest exists that would displace the privilege.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code after the respondent asked him to remove a 'Christ fish' avatar from his online forum profile.

The respondent's forum rules prohibited religious and political content to maintain a safe and inclusive community.

The Tribunal applied the Amselem test and found that the applicant's use of the avatar was a personal desire to outwardly manifest his religious faith, rather than a practice engendering a profound connection to the divine.

The Tribunal concluded that the conduct did not engage the protection of the Code and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff appealed a master's order dismissing its motion for a court‑imposed discovery plan under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant argued that a discovery plan was necessary to prevent delays and costs arising from refusals and undertakings during examinations for discovery.

The court held that the master applied the correct legal principles and exercised her discretion appropriately, noting that the pleadings were not finalized and that the appellant had made insufficient efforts to reach agreement on a discovery plan with the opposing parties.

The court also confirmed that jurisprudence does not require a master to impose a discovery plan whenever parties cannot agree, but instead grants discretion based on the circumstances.

Finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle, the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant landlord brought an application for a declaration that the respondent tenant's option to terminate its commercial lease had expired before it was exercised.

The dispute centered on the correct 'Commencement Date' of the lease, which dictated the termination window.

The landlord relied on a registered notice of lease stating the date was October 27, 2005, while the tenant argued the lease terms dictated November 14, 2005.

The court held that the lease's express language established November 14, 2005 as the Commencement Date, and the erroneous notice of lease did not amend the contract.

The court also rejected the landlord's equitable estoppel argument, noting the landlord had actual notice of the lease terms prior to purchasing the property.

The tenant's notice of termination was deemed effective.