Lawrence E. Thacker

The appellants appealed a sealing order that redacted the amounts to be paid under two proposed settlement agreements in a CCAA proceeding.

The appellants argued the sealing order unjustifiably infringed the open court principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that litigation settlement privilege applied to the settlement agreements until approved by the court.

The court held that the sealing order was a minimal intrusion on the open court principle, the requirement to sign a confidentiality agreement did not impose an undue burden, and the respondents did not waive privilege by complying with the court order.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.

The respondents were entirely successful in the appeals and settled their costs with the appellant Molson Sport & Entertainment Inc. They sought costs from the appellant Jonathan Vrozos, who took no position.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents payable by Vrozos in the amount of $49,768.00.

The appellants, Molson and Vrozos, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for intentional interference with economic relations, breach of contract, and fraud arising from the sale of exclusive water rights at a large concert.

Molson had sold exclusive water rights to Vrozos, who then sold them to the respondents.

Molson subsequently allowed other vendors to sell water and forced the respondents to supply free water to meet health requirements.

Vrozos also made unauthorized side deals and misappropriated funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and the award of punitive damages against Vrozos, correcting only the method of calculating damages against Molson and dismissing Vrozos's crossclaim against Molson for a management fee.

The Minister of Health and Genpharm appealed a decision granting judicial review that quashed the extension of a cut-off date for generic drug submissions to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The application judge had found the process procedurally unfair and ordered a new cut-off date, resulting in all five competing generic drug companies having their products listed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals as moot, finding that the new Formulary had already been published, the legal landscape had changed, and Genpharm's proposed future action for damages did not justify hearing the appeal on the merits.

The applicants sought a stay of the Court of Appeal's order, which had reversed a supervising judge's decision to remove two directors from the board of a company undergoing CCAA restructuring, pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction under s. 65.1(1) of the Supreme Court Act to consider the stay application.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience and the interests of justice favoured denying the stay, as granting it would effectively implement the supervising judge's order that the court had already found was made without jurisdiction.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appealed an order approving the fees and disbursements of a trustee in bankruptcy on a final basis prior to the conclusion of the bankruptcy.

The Superintendent argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to do so before the completion of the statutory approval process involving inspectors and the Superintendent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 192 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act confers broad jurisdiction on the court to pass accounts and fix remuneration at such time as may be appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.

Commercial appeal arising from a terminated joint venture funding agreement for the acquisition of Greek mines.

The Court of Appeal held that no fiduciary duty survived termination of the parties' arm's-length commercial agreement, but upheld findings that the respondent group provided confidential information, that the appellant misused that information in acquiring the property, and that the confidentiality agreement and common law duty of confidence were enforceable.

The court refused to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test and dismissed a non-party motion to set aside the judgment based on alleged ownership of the information.

The remedy awarding a 12 per cent carried interest plus a further 12 per cent participating interest was upheld, while both the main appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The applicants, a lawyer and his law firm, sought judicial review to prohibit the Ontario Securities Commission from continuing proceedings against the lawyer under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act.

The Commission alleged the lawyer made misleading statements in a letter during a prospectus review.

The applicants and the Law Society of Upper Canada argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to discipline lawyers acting in a professional capacity, asserting such power belonged exclusively to the Law Society and that the Commission's exercise of it violated the independence of the bar.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that s. 127(1) applies to lawyers and that the Commission's public interest jurisdiction to control its processes does not usurp the Law Society's role or infringe the rule of law.

The appellants appealed a decision certifying a class action regarding the Bre-X gold mine fraud.

The motion judge had restricted the common issues to conspiracy and fraud, declining to certify negligent misrepresentation as a common issue, and limited the class to shareholders who held shares on the date the possible fraud was publicly disclosed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that negligent misrepresentation claims require individual inquiries into reliance and causation, making a class action not the preferable procedure for those claims.

The court also upheld the temporal restriction on the class, as shareholders who sold before the disclosure date could not have suffered losses caused by the misrepresentations.