Andrea Burke

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that did not alter the approval.

The appellant withdrew the appeal on consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without costs pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered several motions.

The Tribunal granted requests for party, participant, and presenter status, and granted the Appellant's consent motions for a short adjournment and to allow two expert witnesses to testify by videoconference.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's request for a lengthier adjournment to gather additional evidence, finding it would jeopardize the statutory six-month deadline without meeting the necessity test.

The Tribunal also modified the Appellant's proposed issues list to clarify that the appeal is limited to concerns about contamination from substances related to the radionuclide decay chain, rather than general heavy metal contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the North Kent Wind 1 Project.

The Tribunal granted participant, presenter, and party status to various individuals and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's requests for an extension to serve disclosure, to have two witnesses testify by videoconference, and for a short adjournment of the hearing start date.

The scope of the appeal was defined to include both serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appellants commenced a proposed class action for damages for misrepresentations in a takeover bid circular under s. 131(1) of the Securities Act.

The motion judge ruled that plaintiffs must elect whether to sue the offeror or its directors/signatories, and that secondary market sellers could not rely on s. 131(1).

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that s. 131(1) allows a plaintiff to sue both the offeror and its directors/signatories for damages.

However, the Court upheld the ruling that secondary market sellers cannot assert a claim under s. 131(1), as they must rely on the statutory cause of action in Part XXIII.1.

Bell Canada brought an application to strike two arbitration proceedings commenced by Plan Group Inc. (PGI) and its predecessor partnership.

PGI brought a motion to stay the application in favour of arbitration.

The court found that the first arbitration was a nullity because it was commenced by a dissolved partnership that no longer existed.

The court also found that the second arbitration was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the arbitration agreement did not contain clear and express language contracting out of the statutory limitation period.

The court declined to stay the application, finding that the issues were questions of law appropriate for summary judgment under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application was granted and the motion to stay was dismissed.

Nunavut Iron Ore Acquisition Inc. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order cease trading the shareholder rights plan of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.

Nunavut had made an unsolicited takeover bid for Baffinland, which was followed by a higher competing offer from ArcelorMittal supported by the Baffinland board.

The Commission found that the rights plan had served its purpose by facilitating an auction and generating a competing bid.

Maintaining the rights plan would only serve to eliminate the timing advantage of Nunavut's first-in-time offer and force an extension, potentially depriving shareholders of a revised offer.

The Commission concluded it was in the public interest to cease trade the rights plan immediately, allowing shareholders to decide between the competing offers.

During a hearing to review a decision of the Toronto Stock Exchange regarding HudBay Minerals Inc.'s proposed acquisition of Lundin Mining Corporation, HudBay and Lundin requested confidentiality orders for certain documents filed in evidence.

The Ontario Securities Commission considered the open court principle and the test for confidentiality under section 9(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Sierra Club.

The Commission granted confidentiality for documents that were not relevant to its decision on the merits, including handwritten notes and a financial presentation.

However, it ordered that relevant documents, such as special committee minutes and an engagement letter, be made public, subject to minor redactions for third-party sensitive information.