Gabriel Latner

The Toronto Revolver Club sought declarations that the Chief Firearms Officer of Ontario lacks authority to conduct warrantless inspections of shooting ranges and to impose conditions on shooting range approvals.

The court found that while the first issue presented no live controversy, the CFO has no authority to attach conditions to shooting range approvals under the Firearms Act.

The court applied statutory interpretation principles, finding that the Act and Regulations do not expressly grant such power and that the power is not practically necessary to achieve Parliament's public safety objectives, as the CFO retains broad revocation authority.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Gavin Bertsch from the Superior Court’s dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action against Datastealth Inc. The court upheld the enforceability of the employment agreement’s termination provision, which limited Bertsch’s entitlements on termination to the minimum requirements under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA).

The court found the clause to be unambiguous and compliant with the ESA, precluding any claim for common law damages.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

This decision concerns a dispute between two brothers, David Ang and Mark Ang, over the ownership and management of Bolt Technologies Incorporated (formerly Second Closet Incorporated).

David Ang claimed an equal share in the company based on an alleged oral agreement and representations by Mark Ang, as well as claims of wrongful dismissal and oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The court found no enforceable oral agreement or representation, held that the executed Unanimous Shareholders Agreement (USA) governed the parties' rights, and dismissed David's claims.

The court also found that David had engaged in misconduct, including fabricating evidence and breaching fiduciary duties, and allowed Bolt's counterclaim for damages and punitive damages.

The applicant, Loop Financial Inc., brought an application for judgment against the respondent, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), seeking $90,000 for pure economic loss.

Loop alleged that RBC was negligent and breached a duty of care by failing to notify Loop that funds had been fraudulently transferred from an RBC customer's account to a Loop account.

The funds were subsequently withdrawn by the fraudster before the transfer was reversed under Payments Canada Rules.

The court applied the Anns test and held that RBC did not owe a duty of care to Loop, a non-customer, as RBC had not undertaken any responsibility toward Loop and there was no reasonable reliance.

The court further found that even if a duty existed, Loop failed to prove that RBC breached the standard of care.

The application was dismissed, and RBC was awarded $20,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The defendant employer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff argued that the employment contract's termination provisions, which limited entitlements to Employment Standards Act (ESA) minimums, were void for ambiguity and failure to properly reference statutory exemptions.

The court found the contractual terms clear and unambiguous, complying with the ESA, and granted the defendant's motion, striking out the plaintiff's claim.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by DeFi Technologies Inc. against an order awarding Zach Justein and Joseph Weinberg 750,000 share options.

The options were granted by a unanimous board resolution, but later cancelled by management on the grounds that the recipients were not "consultants" under the stock option plan.

The application judge found that the board had the authority to determine eligibility and that the cancellation constituted a breach of contract and an oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the board's resolution made the respondents eligible, their reasonable expectations were defeated, and the damages calculation was appropriate, noting that the respondents were not required to attempt to exercise options after the agreement's repudiation.

The applicants sought damages for the respondent's refusal to honour agreements granting them 750,000 stock options.

The respondent argued the applicants did not meet the eligibility requirements of its stock option plan.

The court found that the respondent's board of directors had validly approved the option grants and that the respondent's subsequent cancellation of the options defeated the applicants' reasonable expectations, constituting oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court awarded damages based on the value of the options, but declined to award punitive damages.