Laurence A. Pattillo

This motion concerned an application by Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC) to enforce two arbitral awards (a Partial Final Award on liability and damages, and a Final Award on costs) against Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation and Baffinland Iron Mines LP (BIM).

BIM raised several defenses, including a pending application to set aside or appeal the awards, which had previously been dismissed by the court.

The court granted TEBC's application to enforce both awards, confirming the awarded amounts for damages and costs, with a condition regarding the transfer of equipment title and excluding "applicable taxes" as not provided for in the original arbitral awards.

Pre-judgment interest was maintained as per the Tribunal's award.

The applicant, a former Senior Manager, Compliance, sought court advice and direction regarding claims for solicitor-client privilege asserted by the Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries over documents and information in her possession.

The applicant had previously initiated a wrongful dismissal claim and sent whistleblower reports to regulators using internal Bank documents.

The Bank asserted privilege over certain materials and applied redactions.

The court found that the documents and information in the applicant's possession were subject to solicitor-client privilege and should be returned or redacted.

The court also denied the applicant's request for her litigation counsel to review the privileged materials, finding no "absolute necessity" and rejected arguments that the privilege belonged to trust beneficiaries or was negated by a future crimes/fraud exception.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and costs were awarded to the Bank.

The applicants, Baffinland Iron Mines LP and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIM), sought to set aside an arbitration award of over $70 million and a subsequent costs award in favour of the respondent, Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC), pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and for leave to appeal under s. 45(1) of the Act.

The court dismissed BIM's application, finding no grounds to set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction or procedural unfairness, and further held that the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal from the Tribunal's decision.

The applicant, Don Bernier, brought an oppression application under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, asserting he was a beneficial and equitable shareholder of Skilcor Food Products Inc. and La Riberie Inc. at the time of their 2017 sales, and was denied his shareholder entitlement.

The respondents denied his shareholder status.

The court found that while an oral agreement for a 9% interest in a "Consolidated group" (Skilcor food assets, La Riberie, and Northbud) existed prior to 2010, this agreement was mutually rescinded by the parties' subsequent conduct, specifically the sale and winding-up of Northbud in 2013.

This rendered the original agreement inoperative as Bernier no longer had the equity contribution (Northbud shares) upon which his interest was based.

The court concluded Bernier was not a shareholder of Skilcor or La Riberie at the time of the sales and therefore lacked standing to bring an oppression claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a Norwich order for pre-action discovery against the respondents to obtain documents relating to a corporate distribution and subsequent acquisition.

The respondents brought motions to quash a notice of examination and for a sealing order over confidential tax information.

The court dismissed the application for a Norwich order, finding the applicant had sufficient information to commence its claims and lacked a legitimate objective.

The court granted the sealing order to protect highly sensitive tax information and quashed the notice of examination as an abuse of process.

The applicant, LTL Management LLC, sought an Initial Recognition Order and a Supplementary Recognition Order under the CCAA to recognize its US Chapter 11 proceedings as a foreign main proceeding.

The court found that the requirements under the CCAA were met, as the Chapter 11 case was a foreign proceeding and the applicant was a foreign representative.

The court granted the recognition orders, including a stay of proceedings and recognition of a US preliminary injunction, but declined to dispense with the requirement to publish notice in Canadian newspapers.

The applicant sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order, approval for a sale and investment solicitation process, and an increase in DIP financing in its CCAA proceedings.

Due to the chronic problem of late filings on the Commercial List, the court adjourned the motion because the materials were filed late the evening before the hearing.

The court extended the stay and authorized a small increase in DIP borrowing to maintain the business until the adjourned date, warning counsel that late filings for scheduled matters will result in adjournments.

Five creditors brought an application for a bankruptcy order against the respondent debtor.

The court found that two of the applicants, Groia and Anne Wilson, had debts owing in excess of $1,000 at the time of the application.

The court also found that the respondent had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet its liabilities generally as they became due, given the multiple outstanding debts and judgments against it.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application, noting the respondent's failure to prove its ability to pay its debts and the presence of suspicious circumstances regarding its property dealings.

The bankruptcy order was granted.

The respondent brought a motion to remove the court-appointed liquidator of a real estate company, alleging a conflict of interest and collaboration with the applicant Estate.

The liquidator sought approval of its activities, fees, and an extension of a listing agreement for the sale of properties.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the liquidator, finding no evidence of bad faith or blatant intentional action contrary to the interests of the parties.

The court approved the liquidator's fees and the extension of the listing agreement, noting the fees were fair and reasonable.

The applicants sought a declaration that they had fully repaid a commercial loan to the respondent and an order preventing the respondent from exercising its right to convert the debt into shares.

The applicants had attempted to repay the loan via a wire transfer to the personal account of the respondent's principal, as the respondent had refused to provide wire instructions and insisted on strict compliance with the loan agreement.

The court found that the applicants failed to repay the loan in accordance with the strict terms of the agreement.

Consequently, the applicants' application was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-application to enforce its conversion rights was granted.

The appellant appealed a Discipline Committee decision awarding $35,000 in costs to the respondents after dismissing professional misconduct charges against them.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Committee majority erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors by failing to apply the correct legal test, ignoring relevant expert evidence, and considering irrelevant factors such as the complainant's motivation.

The costs award was set aside.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion seeking to revive a 2004 fraudulent conveyance action against the Bankrupt and his brother, and to set aside a 2007 order and notice of discontinuance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Trustee had settled the action against the brother in 2007.

Furthermore, the court held that the fraudulent conveyance claims were res judicata, as they had been fully litigated and dismissed in a prior family court proceeding where the Trustee actively participated as an intervenor.

The court also refused to approve the Trustee's reports due to factual inaccuracies and declined to authorize criminal proceedings.

Finally, the court ordered the Trustee to pay partial indemnity costs personally, as it had pursued adversarial litigation without inspector authority and knowing the estate had no funds.

The applicant challenged her late mother's will, which disinherited her and her brother, leaving the entire estate to her sister.

The applicant sought to revoke the certificate of appointment and declare the will invalid based on suspicious circumstances, lack of capacity, and undue influence.

She also requested a hybrid trial.

The court dismissed the request for a hybrid trial, finding it disproportionate and unnecessary.

On the merits, the court found the will was properly executed and the mother had testamentary capacity.

The applicant failed to establish suspicious circumstances or undue influence, as the mother had valid reasons for disinheriting the applicant due to a history of estrangement and financial misconduct.

The application was dismissed.

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 trustee in bankruptcy brought a motion to annul the bankrupt's discharge and vest the shares of a corporation in the estate as after-acquired property.

The bankrupt claimed his wife had owned the shares since incorporation.

The court found the bankrupt owned the shares while undischarged, noting he had admitted ownership in another proceeding and had fabricated corporate records and tax returns to support his wife's claim.

The court annulled the discharge, vested the shares in the trustee, and awarded substantial indemnity costs jointly and severally against the bankrupt and his wife.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion for the partition and sale of a property in which the bankrupt allegedly held a 20% interest as a tenant in common with his mother.

The bankrupt and his mother claimed the 20% interest was a gift intended to pass only upon her death and was not an asset of the estate.

The court rejected this argument, finding the bankrupt held a 20% interest that vested in the Trustee.

Finding no malice or oppression by the Trustee, the court ordered the sale of the property, stayed for three months to allow the parties to resolve the matter.

The moving party, claiming to be the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), arguing the current estate trustee was in a conflict of interest by opposing her claims.

The estate trustee brought a cross-motion to evict the moving party from the deceased's property and to sell it, citing the estate's financial deficit and required repairs.

The court dismissed the motion for an ETDL, finding the estate trustee's opposition to a creditor's claim did not require a neutral trustee.

The court granted the cross-motion, ordering the moving party to vacate the property and authorizing its sale, noting the moving party had suitable alternative accommodation and her claims against the estate would not be prejudiced.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits and a special award from his insurer.

At first instance, the Licence Appeal Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month and a special award.

On reconsideration, the LAT varied the decision, finding the initial adjudicator erred by not applying the mandatory maximum hourly rates for attendant care and by misapplying the test for a special award.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the reconsideration adjudicator made no errors of law in applying the statutory hourly rate caps or in setting aside the special award based on the established legal test.

The Applicants, licensed cannabis producers, sought court approval and sanction of their second amended and restated plan of compromise and arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan aimed to implement a settlement framework for multiple securities class actions arising from the Applicants' illegal cannabis growing operations.

While the court found the Allocation and Distribution Scheme reasonable and rejected KPMG's complaint about being excluded from voting, it refused to sanction the Plan.

The court held that the Plan's provisions regarding the assignment of claims against KPMG and the Judgment Reduction Provision in the Bar Order were not fair and reasonable to the non-settling defendants, as they failed to limit the non-settling defendants' liability to several liability.

The applicant school board sought judicial review to quash clauses 10(2)(i) and (ii) of O. Reg. 20/98 under the Education Act as ultra vires.

The impugned regulations restrict the availability of education development charges (EDCs) to circumstances where a school board does not have board-wide surplus capacity.

The applicant argued this undermined the purpose of the EDC regime, which is to ensure growth pays for growth.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the regulations were consistent with the statutory grant of authority and the broader scheme of the Education Act, which includes strict financial oversight and efficient use of education funds.