Leah Garvin

The moving party sought to transfer a contract rectification action from Toronto to Ottawa under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The dispute arose from a federal government wireless services transition contract negotiated and administered in the National Capital Region, and the material witnesses for both sides were located there.

Applying a holistic balancing of the venue-transfer factors, the court held that the moving party had shown Ottawa was significantly better than Toronto and that transfer was desirable in the interests of justice.

The motion was granted, subject to approval of the Regional Senior Justice for the East Region, with costs left for submissions if necessary.

The applicant, a federal inmate, sought habeas corpus challenging his reclassification from medium to maximum security and involuntary transfer to a higher security institution.

The court held that correctional authorities complied with the disclosure regime under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and were not required to undertake further investigation into the underlying intelligence.

However, the authorities failed to comply with s. 12(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations by not holding the required meeting to explain the reasons for the proposed transfer after allowing time for preparation, and by denying the applicant his elected opportunity to make in person representations.

Those breaches were substantive, not merely technical, and rendered the transfer decision procedurally unfair and unlawful.

Habeas corpus was granted and the reclassification and transfer decision was quashed.

In a habeas corpus proceeding arising from involuntary transfer from medium to maximum security, the applicant sought appointment of amicus curiae to review sealed affidavit material withheld under s. 27(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The court applied the Supreme Court's amicus standard and held that such assistance was not essential to the reviewing judge's discharge of judicial functions.

Relying on Khela, the court held that review of the sealed material and assessment of compliance with s. 27 disclosure obligations are tasks assigned to the reviewing judge, not to an amicus.

The application for appointment of amicus curiae was dismissed.

The appellant, a successful bidder on a federal dam construction contract in Quebec, sued the federal Crown in Ontario for negligent misstatement and breach of contract.

The motion judge struck the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under s. 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, finding the contract claim arose in Quebec and the tort claim was extinguished by the contract's general conditions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the motion judge applied the correct test to determine where the substance of the claim arose and correctly interpreted the contract as providing an exclusive mechanism for resolving claims.

Following a prior summary judgment establishing liability for copyright infringement, the court conducted an uncontested assessment of damages.

The defendant operated a language training service that collected confidential federal public service language test questions from students and used them to train others, thereby infringing Crown copyright and undermining the integrity of the testing system.

The plaintiff elected statutory damages under s. 38.1 of the Copyright Act and sought the statutory maximum for six compromised tests plus punitive damages.

The court considered the defendant’s bad faith, deterrence objectives, and lack of evidence regarding profits.

Statutory damages were awarded at varying levels per infringement but punitive damages were declined.

The federal Crown brought a motion to strike an action for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation relating to a construction contract for the replacement of a dam in Quebec.

The court held that the contractual claim arose in Quebec because the project, contract administration, and relevant decisions occurred there.

Although the alleged negligent misrepresentation claim was connected to Ontario because tender documents were obtained and relied upon in Ontario, the contract constituted a complete code governing compensation for extra costs and delays.

Interpreting the contract, the court concluded that the parties had excluded concurrent liability in tort.

As a result, the negligent misrepresentation claim was struck and the remaining contractual claim, which arose in Quebec, could not be heard in Ontario under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appealed a deputy registrar’s decision granting an absolute discharge to bankrupt individuals who had failed to comply with surplus income payment obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The bankrupts had outstanding surplus income payments exceeding $10,000 and had not pursued mediation or other statutory remedies available under the Act.

The court held that s.172(2) of the BIA mandates specific responses where a bankrupt has failed to comply with payment requirements imposed under s.68 and does not permit an absolute discharge in such circumstances.

The deputy registrar exceeded jurisdiction by disregarding the statutory scheme and granting an absolute discharge despite non‑compliance.

The court annulled the discharge and ordered mediation, with a rehearing before a judge if mediation failed.