Lia Bruschetta

The appellant, Canada Forgings Inc., appealed the dismissal of its procurement law claim against Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

The trial judge had found the claim statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and rejected the procurement law arguments, concluding no "Contract A" was formed.

The trial judge also ruled a Deloitte Report inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the reasons sufficient, the limitations analysis correct, the procurement law findings sound (no duty of fairness without Contract A), and the Deloitte Report properly excluded due to prior rulings and privilege.

The appeal was dismissed, and the costs award from the trial was upheld.

The plaintiff, Canada Forgings Inc. (CanForge), sued Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) alleging breach of a duty of fairness in a procurement process for nuclear reactor components.

CanForge claimed AECL unfairly favored a competitor, Patriot Forge Co., for end fitting forgings for the Bruce and Lepreau projects.

The court dismissed CanForge's claim on two primary grounds: first, it was statute-barred as the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was formally added to the Statement of Claim; second, no Contract A existed between CanForge and AECL, meaning no implied duty of fairness was owed to CanForge as a subcontractor.

The court also assessed damages hypothetically, finding no lost profits even if the claim had succeeded.

The appellant objected to their civil appeal proceeding in writing, arguing the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order a written hearing over a party's objection, contrary to the *Courts of Justice Act* and *Rules of Civil Procedure*.

The court, through a Case Management Judge, dismissed the objection, affirming its broad implicit jurisdiction to manage its own process and ensure the just and efficient administration of justice, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that neither the Act nor the Rules mandate an absolute right to an oral hearing and found the appeal suitable for a written disposition.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Deciem Beauty Group Inc., brought an urgent oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act seeking various interim orders against Deciem, Integridad Inc., Pasquale Cusano, and Brandon Truaxe.

The motion sought to remove Mr. Truaxe from Deciem's board, officer, and employee roles, appoint an interim CEO, define the board composition, prohibit Truaxe's interference with business operations and electronic systems, amend the unanimous shareholders agreement, and appoint PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP to investigate allegations of criminal activity and Deciem's financial condition.

The court found a triable issue of oppression, irreparable harm to Deciem, and that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, given Truaxe's erratic and destructive behavior that brought the company to the brink of disaster.

The respondent purchased the appellant's business in exchange for securities, with the appellant becoming a minority shareholder.

The acquisition agreement contained a representation and warranty regarding tax pools.

Years later, the Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the respondent's use of the tax pools and assessed approximately $11.8 million in additional taxes, interest, and penalties.

The respondent invoked an indemnity from the appellant, who argued the respondent had breached the tax pools representation and warranty.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the respondent, interpreting the representation and warranty as directed solely to the accurate identification of tax pools and their values at closing, not as a guarantee of future tax utilization.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a certified class proceeding brought by pharmacy franchisees against a franchisor, the plaintiffs moved to finalize a discovery plan for the upcoming common issues trial.

The dispute concerned whether the defendant franchisor should produce source documents underlying accounting reports regarding professional allowances received from drug manufacturers.

The court emphasized the proportionality principle in discovery, noting that the plaintiffs had not yet reviewed the reports already agreed to be produced and that further requests might therefore be speculative or unnecessary.

The court categorized the requested document productions as improper, premature, or appropriately satisfied through representative sampling.

The discovery plan was finalized accordingly, requiring samples for certain categories while denying or deferring others.