6 total
The court set aside service and stayed the action against foreign pharmaceutical companies for lack of jurisdiction.
The defendants, GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Almirall (Aqua Pharmaceuticals), brought a motion to set aside service of the Statement of Claim and to dismiss or stay the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, Glycobiosciences Inc., alleged tortious interference and fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation.
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for any presumptive connecting factors (domicile, carrying on business, or tort committed in Ontario) to link the defendants to the jurisdiction.
Consequently, the court lacked a real and substantial connection to the action, set aside service, and stayed the action against both defendants.
Costs were awarded to the successful defendants.
The court reluctantly granted a last-minute adjournment due to counsel's unavailability but awarded $10,000 in costs.
The plaintiff's counsel sought an adjournment of a long motion brought by the defendant to dismiss a class action.
The adjournment was requested primarily due to the recent retention of outside counsel who was unavailable, among other reasons.
The court reluctantly granted the adjournment, criticizing plaintiff's counsel's conduct for causing needless delay and wasting judicial resources, but found it necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.
The court emphasized that retaining new counsel on the eve of a hearing will not constitute exceptional circumstances for future adjournments.
Costs of $10,000 were awarded against the plaintiff's counsel.
Manufacturer breached regulations by unilaterally non-renewing dealership agreement, but did not breach warranty reimbursement rules.
The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.
The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.
The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.
However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.
Request for review of Tribunal decision dismissed; Tribunal is functus officio and will not issue supplementary reasons.
The Applicant requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application, and suggested clarifications to the decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for review, finding that the Applicant was merely attempting to reargue her case and had not established any material errors of fact or law.
The Tribunal also declined to issue supplementary reasons to clarify the decision, noting that it was functus officio, though it did correct minor clerical errors pursuant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Pension plan amendment changing inflation indexing method did not reduce accrued benefits under the Pension Benefits Act.
The applicant, a retired member of the OMERS pension plan, challenged an amendment to the plan that changed the method used to calculate inflation indexing.
The applicant argued that the amendment reduced her accrued pension benefits, contrary to section 14(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, because the new method produced a lower increase in the year it was implemented.
The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the new method was actuarially equivalent to the old method and would produce the same level of inflation protection over time.
The Tribunal held that the amendment did not reduce the aggregate amount or the commuted value of the applicant's accrued pension.
CRTC has statutory authority to direct telecommunications deferral account funds to broadband expansion and consumer credits.
The CRTC ordered telecommunications carriers to create deferral accounts from urban residential telephone service revenues.
It later directed that these funds be used to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities, expand broadband coverage, and distribute remaining amounts to subscribers as credits.
Bell Canada, TELUS, and consumer groups appealed the CRTC's authority to make these allocations.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the CRTC's creation and use of the deferral accounts was a reasonable exercise of its rate-setting authority under the Telecommunications Act, which requires it to balance the interests of consumers, carriers, and competitors while implementing national telecommunications policy objectives.
