Lauren Rachella Butti

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside because he was induced to sign it by the respondent's fraudulent misrepresentation that his termination was due to restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the test for fraudulent misrepresentation, specifically the requirement to repudiate the agreement and return the settlement funds within a reasonable time.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

Following an appeal from an arbitral award concerning mining concessions and a contractual right of first offer, the court addressed costs of the appeal.

The earlier decision allowed the appeal in part, confirming that the right of first offer was triggered but overturning the arbitrator’s findings regarding partnership, fiduciary duties, and the remedy ordered.

Both parties claimed substantial success and sought partial indemnity costs.

The court held that success on the appeal was divided, as each side prevailed on significant issues.

In the circumstances, the appropriate disposition was for each party to bear its own costs.

The appellants and respondent held equal interests in a limited partnership formed to develop a property.

After their relationship soured, the appellants offered to sell their interest to the respondent.

The respondent accepted the offer while secretly negotiating to sell the entire property to a third party at a profit.

The appellants sued for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the limited partnership agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the action, finding that the presumption of a fiduciary duty was rebutted because both parties were acting in their own self-interest with the knowledge that the partnership was ending.

Appeal from an arbitral award under s. 45(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 concerning a joint venture relating to mining concessions in Peru.

The arbitrator held that the appellants breached a contractual right of first offer and a trust relationship by granting a cesión minera (assignment of concession rights) to a third party without offering the opportunity to the respondents.

The court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that entering into the cesión minera triggered the right of first offer and constituted a breach of the contractual trust arrangement.

However, the court found the arbitrator erred in law by concluding that the parties’ relationship constituted a partnership giving rise to broader fiduciary duties and by crafting a remedy tied to the broader share purchase agreement rather than the cesión minera itself.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part and the matter remitted to the arbitrator to determine appropriate terms for offering the cesión minera to the respondents.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs following summary judgment motions and the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing the allegations were akin to accusations of fraud and were unsubstantiated.

The plaintiffs argued that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible litigation conduct.

The court held that although the defendant succeeded on the motions, the plaintiffs’ conduct was not reprehensible and their cross‑motion was not unreasonable.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court determined that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The defendant was awarded $150,000 in costs for the motions and the action.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision quashing a by-law that authorized a licence agreement for a jet boat tour operator to use a municipal dock.

The application judge had found the by-law contravened the Planning Act because the use did not conform to the Official Plan's 'Conservation' designation and was not a legal non-conforming use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jet boat operation was a legal non-complying use under the Official Plan, as it was lawfully established by a prior by-law before the Plan was adopted.

The Court also found the licence agreement was not an unlawful disposition of land and did not create an illegal monopoly.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a Master's decision ordering them to answer certain discovery questions.

The plaintiff, a former CEO of Symcor, claimed a 10% equity interest based on his employment agreement.

The defendants argued the agreement was unenforceable.

During discovery, the defendants refused to answer questions regarding the drafting of a subsequent shareholders' agreement, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Master ordered the questions answered, finding no privilege or that privilege was waived.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal for Symcor regarding certain questions, finding good reason to doubt the Master's decision on privilege, but denied leave for the Banks and other questions.