Leonard Marsello

The plaintiffs, a group of affiliated wine manufacturers and retailers, brought an action against the LCBO, the AGCO, and the Crown challenging the 'Made Policy', which regulates where wineries can sell their products.

The parties brought six competing motions, including motions to strike pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and a motion regarding the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' pleadings over the tolling agreement, finding it did not alter the expected adversarial landscape.

The court struck significant portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim against the LCBO and AGCO, particularly allegations relating to pre-2001 conduct that had been settled in prior litigation, and claims for intentional interference with economic relations.

The Crown's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against it.

The AGCO's and the plaintiffs' respective motions for summary judgment were dismissed, as the complex factual matrix and allegations of bad faith required a trial.

The plaintiffs appealed an order of a Master upholding numerous refusals made during Rule 39.03 examinations of non-party witnesses.

The examinations related to interlocutory motions concerning the late disclosure of a tolling agreement between the defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged 14 errors of fact and law, primarily challenging the Master's findings on litigation privilege, common interest privilege, and the scope of permissible questions for Rule 39.03 witnesses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, and affirming that the documents and communications surrounding the tolling agreement were protected by privilege.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of private issuers who operate ServiceOntario outlets, alleging that Ontario breached its duty of good faith and acted unreasonably in exercising its unilateral discretion to set their compensation.

The plaintiff argued that the compensation was inadequate and failed to keep pace with expenses.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence of dishonesty or bad faith by Ontario.

The court held that the duty of good faith applies to the performance of the contract, not to ensuring a commercially reasonable outcome, and that Ontario's compensation decisions were not commercially unreasonable in any event.

The alternative claim for unjust enrichment was also dismissed as the contract constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The appellants appealed from the Court of Appeal's reversal of the CCAA court's decision regarding the priority of pension plan wind-up deficiency claims over court-ordered DIP financing charges.

The majority held that wind-up deficiencies under s. 75(1)(b) of the Pension Benefits Act were subject to a statutory deemed trust under s. 57(4), but that the deemed trust was superseded by the DIP charge by virtue of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The majority further held that while the employer-administrator breached its fiduciary duty by failing to ensure the pension plan beneficiaries had adequate notice and representation in the CCAA proceedings, a constructive trust was not an appropriate remedy because the breach did not result in an identifiable asset that it would be unjust for the wrongdoer to retain.

In CCAA proceedings involving a large telecommunications company, the applicants sought authorization to cease environmental remediation work at several contaminated sites and to have regulatory remediation orders treated as claims within the insolvency process.

The provincial environmental regulator argued that its orders imposed regulatory performance obligations rather than monetary claims and therefore should not be stayed by the insolvency proceedings.

The court held that where a debtor is no longer operating and compliance with regulatory orders necessarily requires the expenditure of funds, such orders are in substance financial obligations.

The court concluded that environmental remediation orders relating to pre‑filing contamination constituted claims subject to the CCAA claims process and were stayed by the existing stay of proceedings.

The applicants were authorized to cease remediation activities and environmental claims were directed to be resolved through the established claims procedure.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring production of numerous documents relating to police conduct during a blockade and the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before granting mining rights.

The moving parties argued the motion judge failed to give adequate reasons, misapplied relevance and proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and improperly assumed possession of certain documents.

The court held that the motion judge provided sufficient reasons and properly applied the relevance and proportionality requirements for documentary production.

The requested materials, including police notes and records related to consultation obligations, were highly relevant to claims involving access to property and alleged Crown negligence.

The defendants failed to establish good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and leave to appeal was refused.