Laurie Christine Livingstone

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent an arbitrator from hearing and deciding a challenge to his own jurisdiction until the court determined the plaintiffs' cross-motion to set aside the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiffs had sold two corporations to the defendant for $40 million under a share purchase agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After the transaction closed, disputes arose regarding alleged breaches of warranties and post-closing adjustments.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced a court action and challenged the arbitrator's jurisdiction in the arbitration proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the first two prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test: there was no serious question to be tried, and no irreparable harm would result from allowing the arbitration to proceed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction and the granting of the defendant's motion to stay the action based on an arbitration clause, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant and IWS sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the plaintiff made baseless claims of deceitful behaviour and brought a tactical motion.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the allegations did not rise to the necessary level.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the defendant's costs at $35,000 and IWS's costs at $9,000, noting the motions were important and of more than average complexity.

Loan Away Inc. sought an interlocutory injunction against Western Life Assurance Company to compel payments and prevent termination of insurance policies, and also sought to amend its statement of claim to add IWS Creditor Group Inc. and consolidate arbitrations.

Western Life Assurance Company brought a cross-motion to stay the action based on an arbitration clause.

The court dismissed Loan Away's request for an interlocutory injunction due to lack of an undertaking as to damages and failure to meet the strong prima facie case and irreparable harm tests for a mandatory injunction.

The court granted Western's motion to stay the action and refer the issues to arbitration, including the arbitrator's jurisdiction over a permanent injunction.

Loan Away's request to consolidate arbitrations was denied due to lack of consent from all parties, and its motion to add IWS as a party was also denied as no tenable cause of action was pleaded against IWS.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review filed by a candidate in its leadership contest.

The candidate sought review of the CPC's decision to fine him $50,000 for allegedly leaking a membership list.

The CPC argued the court lacked jurisdiction because judicial review is limited to state action, that political parties lack standing as respondents, and that the application was premature.

The court dismissed the standing and prematurity arguments, finding that unincorporated associations can be subject to judicial review and that the internal appeal process was potentially biased.

However, noting conflicting jurisprudence on whether judicial review requires state conduct, the court adjourned the jurisdictional issue to be determined by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim against the university and its officials for negligent advice.

The motion judge found the claim was in pith and substance an academic dispute.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the negligence claim regarding advice on deregistration was part and parcel of the academic dispute.

The court declined to transfer the proceeding to the Divisional Court for judicial review.

The respondents' cross-appeal was allowed to amend the motion judge's order, which had inappropriately fettered the Divisional Court's discretion to consider the defence of delay.

The appellants, members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, sought a declaration that the party could not merge with the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party without the unanimous consent of all its members.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the Canada Elections Act governed the merger.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, ruling that the common law requirement for unanimous consent in voluntary associations does not apply to registered political parties, which are governed by a sophisticated statutory regime.

Furthermore, the Canada Elections Act explicitly outlines the requirements for a merger, which do not include unanimous consent.

The respondent in an appeal brought a motion to quash the portion of the appeal relating to a refusal to order the production of documents, and for an order requiring the appellant to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding the production order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

However, the Court dismissed the motion for security for costs, holding that such an order cannot be made against a defendant/appellant who was forced into court by the plaintiff.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the appellant.