Linda Plumpton

Following directions from the Federal Court of Appeal to reconsider a previous costs award, the Tax Court of Canada reviewed the appellate decisions in the related appeals.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to vary the original order, confirming the lump sum costs award of $1,197,942 payable by the appellants on a joint and several basis.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against four major airlines, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and suppress the supply of transborder air travel between Canada and the United States.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they contained only bald, unsupported allegations of a conspiracy without material facts.

The court also found no basis in fact for the proposed common issues, noting that the plaintiff's reliance on parallel U.S. litigation regarding domestic travel was insufficient to support a conspiracy in the transborder market.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert methodology for calculating class-wide loss was deemed purely hypothetical, and the representative plaintiff was found inadequate as she purchased her ticket using loyalty points rather than directly from the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a pre-approval order regarding a $500 million settlement in principle with the Loblaw defendants in a national class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy for packaged bread.

The court granted the order, amending the certification of the Ontario action for settlement purposes only, appointing the settlement administrator, and approving the notice plan and pre-approval notices to inform class members of the settlement and their opt-out or objection rights.

The parties made written submissions regarding costs following judgments in several related appeals.

The Appellants sought partial indemnity costs for the appeals in which they were successful, while the Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The Tax Court of Canada awarded lump sum costs in favour of the Respondent fixed at $1,197,942, payable by the Appellants on a joint and several basis, finding that the Respondent was entitled to partial indemnity costs at the mid to high end of the scale due to the degree of overall success, amounts at issue, complexity, and conduct of the parties.

The Appellant established several income funds and arranged for his RRSP Trust to acquire in excess of 99% of the units.

The Minister reassessed the Appellant and the RRSP Trust on the basis that the income funds were not qualified investments, or alternatively, that they were a sham, window dressing, or subject to GAAR.

The Tax Court found that the income funds were not qualified investments because they failed to meet the prescribed conditions for a mutual fund trust, specifically the requirement for a lawful distribution to the public.

The Court also found that the transactions were abusive tax avoidance under GAAR.

However, the Court allowed the appeals in part, finding that the Minister could not assess the same amounts under both subsection 56(2) and subsection 146(10.1), and that the RRSP Trust was entitled to a credit for the value of units issued in exchange for other qualified investments.

The applicants, dissident shareholders engaged in a proxy contest, sought a hearing and review of a Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) decision that conditionally approved the issuance of shares by Eco Oro Minerals Corp. to certain shareholders without requiring a shareholder vote.

The TSX permitted an accelerated closing of the share issuance just days before the record date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission conducted a de novo review, finding that the TSX overlooked material evidence regarding the proxy contest and erred in its interpretation of 'materially affect control.' The Commission set aside the TSX decision, concluding that the share issuance materially affected control and required shareholder approval.

To remedy the improper issuance, the Commission ordered Eco Oro to hold a shareholder vote to either ratify or reverse the share issuance, cease-traded the new shares pending the vote, and prohibited the new shares from being voted at the upcoming meeting.

NorthWest Value Partners Inc. applied for a hearing and review of two decisions of the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) regarding InterRent Real Estate Investment Trust: a decision accepting notice of a private placement without requiring unitholder approval, and a decision allowing InterRent to postpone its annual meeting.

On preliminary motions, the Ontario Securities Commission granted intervenor status to CLV Group Inc., denied NorthWest's request for disclosure of the subscribers' names, and concluded it would defer to the TSX's decision on the private placement as NorthWest failed to establish grounds for intervention under the Canada Malting test.

The Commission also dismissed the request to review the meeting date decision because it was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit.

NorthWest Value Partners Inc. applied for a hearing and review of two decisions of the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) regarding InterRent Real Estate Investment Trust.

The TSX had allowed a private placement to proceed without unitholder approval and permitted a delay in the annual meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted intervenor status to CLV Group Inc. but denied it to Mike McGahan.

The Commission declined to order disclosure of the private placees' names to protect their privacy.

Applying the Canada Malting test, the Commission deferred to the TSX Listing Committee Decision, finding no grounds to intervene.

The application to review the TSX Meeting Date Decision was dismissed as it was filed out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding amendments to the respondent's health and benefit plan.

The respondent requested an early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, calculating the time from when notice of the amendments was given to employees.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the incident of alleged discrimination occurred when the changes to the plan came into effect, not when the notice was provided.

Therefore, the application was filed within the time limit.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay $40,000 in wages against his former employer and its directors.

The employer was bankrupt.

The Board held that under section 68(2) of the Employment Standards Act, it lacked jurisdiction to review a refusal to issue an order against directors.

Furthermore, the Board could not issue an order against the bankrupt employer due to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and because the applicant had already settled his claim with the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The application was dismissed.