Aaron Rubinoff

The applicant career college brought a motion for a stay of the Superintendent's decision to revoke approval of its diagnostic medical sonography program pending a judicial review application.

The revocation followed the loss of the program's accreditation status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, such as financial inability to pay required student refunds.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay to allow students to receive refunds and pursue education elsewhere, rather than remaining trapped in an unaccredited program.

The defendants brought a motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel and their law firm on the basis of a conflict of interest.

The defendant, Marc Lewis, had previously retained the same law firm for an employment matter with a former employer.

The court applied the MacDonald Estate test and found that the previous retainer was not sufficiently related to the current malfeasance action, and no relevant confidential information was imparted.

Furthermore, the law firm had implemented an ethical wall.

The motion to disqualify counsel was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant conceded she had a mental disorder and had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, but argued the remaining statutory criteria were not met.

The Board found that the secure treatment program would be effective, appropriate treatment was available, and no less restrictive method was appropriate given the applicant's escalating aggressive behaviours and the exhaustion of community resources.

The application for release was denied.

The City of Brockville appealed an application judge's order that set aside three arbitral awards and appointed a new arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by characterizing questions of mixed fact and law as extricable questions of law and by misapplying procedural fairness principles under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Court emphasized the narrow basis for setting aside arbitral awards and the caution required in extricating questions of law from contractual interpretation.

The appeal was allowed, reinstating the arbitrator's original awards.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of applications by Belokon, Entes, Sistem, and Stans (the "Applicants") to recognize and enforce arbitral awards against the Kyrgyz Republic (the "Republic"), and to declare an exigible ownership interest of the Republic in Centerra Gold Inc. shares held by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC.

The Republic and Kyrgyzaltyn (the "Respondents") sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting claims for full or substantial indemnity.

It also determined that costs should be payable on a several, not joint and several, basis due to the unrelated nature of the Applicants and the court-directed common issue hearing.

The court limited the costs award to the common issue hearing, excluding prior jurisdiction motions or general recognition application costs, and considered previous compensation for materials.

The applicants sought a declaration that the Kyrgyz Republic held an exigible ownership interest in shares of Centerra Gold Inc. registered in the name of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, to enforce arbitral awards.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Agreement on New Terms (ANT) unambiguously established Kyrgyzaltyn JSC as the beneficial owner of the shares, not the Republic.

The court rejected arguments based on contract interpretation under New York law and trust principles under Canadian law, emphasizing the separate legal personality of the subsidiary and the lack of evidence for an ownership interest or trust.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit filed by a respondent in an application to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The affidavit alleged that the applicant had engaged in money laundering and other criminal activity relating to the investment that was the subject of the arbitration.

The court held that the affidavit attempted to relitigate issues already determined by the arbitral tribunal and would improperly create a “trial within a trial” on the merits of the award.

Because recognition and enforcement proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law permit only narrow defences, the affidavit was clearly irrelevant and scandalous.

The affidavit was struck, though it could remain in the record solely as part of the Paris annulment proceedings.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement.

The Board previously found a violation and convened a hearing to determine the remedy.

At the hearing, the employer requested an adjournment and supplementary reasons, both of which the Board denied, noting the delay already incurred and the lack of circumstances beyond the employer's control.

On the issue of remedy, the Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement that had been agreed upon, with retroactive effect to September 8, 1987, to restore the parties to the position they would have been in but for the violation.

The complainant trade union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices during collective bargaining by refusing to disclose a salary survey, refusing to provide particulars of existing salaries and proposed adjustments, communicating directly with employees to disparage the union, and unilaterally implementing salary adjustments during the statutory freeze period.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 15, 64, 67, and 79 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, bargain in good faith, produce the salary survey, compensate the union and employees for losses, and post a notice of its violations.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint, the complainant union requested an order directing the respondent employer to produce a salary survey and other documents related to unilateral salary adjustments.

The employer argued the survey was irrelevant and its production would grant the ultimate remedy sought in the complaint.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to order production of documents relevant to the issues, finding the survey's existence and content relevant to the employer's motivation.

The Board ordered production of the survey and documents the employer intended to rely on, noting that the union was bound by an implied undertaking not to use the documents for collateral purposes such as collective bargaining.