Linda Galessiere

A reporter requested the names, billing amounts, and specialties of the top 100 physicians billing OHIP.

The Ministry refused to disclose the names, but the Information and Privacy Commissioner ordered disclosure, finding the information was not 'personal information' under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ontario Medical Association and affected physicians sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Adjudicator's conclusion that OHIP payments revealed professional rather than personal information was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision granting the respondent leave to amend its pleading to withdraw admissions.

The appellant argued the Master committed a palpable and overriding error by allowing amendments that were not based on newly discovered facts but rather on improving the respondent's litigation position, particularly in the context of a pending summary judgment motion.

The court found the Master misapprehended the evidence by confusing factual matters with advocacy positions and that there was no reasonable explanation for the late and strategic withdrawal of admissions.

The appeal was allowed, the Master's order set aside, and the respondent's motion to amend dismissed.

The applicant sought an order approving the sale of its assets to a purchaser under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The transaction was a credit-bid that would result in the continuation of a substantial portion of the business, saving jobs and stores.

An unsecured creditor objected because the transaction did not treat all unsecured creditors equally, as the purchaser assumed only certain critical supplier liabilities.

The court approved the transaction, finding that under s. 36 of the CCAA, there is no requirement that all creditors be treated equally in a sale, and the transaction was more beneficial than a liquidation.

The applicant sought recognition of various interim orders, including an Interim DIP ABL Order, in a cross-border insolvency proceeding under the CCAA.

The court granted most of the requested relief but declined to recognize the Interim DIP ABL Order and the associated DIP ABL Lenders’ Charge.

The refusal was based on the lack of adequate protection for Canadian landlords, who would be detrimentally affected by the Canadian entities guaranteeing and collateralizing the DIP facility without receiving comparable security or the benefit of marshalling, unlike other creditor groups.

Payless Holdings LLC, as foreign representative for itself and other Chapter 11 Debtors, applied for recognition of its U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings as foreign main proceedings under the CCAA in Canada.

The application also sought recognition of certain First Day Orders and a stay of proceedings.

The court granted the Initial Recognition Order, finding the U.S. proceedings to be foreign main proceedings based on the integrated operations and U.S. center of main interest for the Canadian entities.

Certain stay provisions were also granted, with remaining issues adjourned.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario and a group of affected physicians brought procedural motions in three related applications for judicial review concerning an order to release physician billing information.

The court ordered the applications to be heard together and permitted counsel to access the private Record of Proceedings upon signing an undertaking.

The court denied a request to allow Toronto Star representatives access to the private record.

The court also ruled that the applicant physicians could not remain completely anonymous to the court; their identities must be filed under seal, and generalized, non-identifying demographic information must be made public.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to commence a derivative action under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motions judge found the motion was statute-barred because it was brought after the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge correctly applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the CIBC trilogy, which established that a nunc pro tunc order is not available when a motion for leave is filed after the limitation period has expired.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to commence a derivative action under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as section 255 of the OBCA directs appeals of orders made under the Act to the Divisional Court.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the responding parties' appeal of an order requiring interim payments pending a phase two trial.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory, or alternatively, made under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, meaning jurisdiction lay with the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the order was final as it determined minimum payment amounts and rejected certain deductions.

The Court also held the underlying relief was rooted in common law and equity, not the OBCA, giving the Court of Appeal jurisdiction.

Following a successful motion for partial summary judgment, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the defendants' conduct, which included oppressive actions, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to cooperate with the court-appointed investigator, warranted an elevated costs award.

The court fixed costs at $170,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the defendants.

The applicants in CCAA proceedings sought an extension of the Stay Period to April 15, 2016, as they prepared an Amended and Restated Plan of Compromise.

The court found the parties were working in good faith and with due diligence, and granted the extension.

The court also approved an agreement to lift the Co-Tenancy Stay on acceptable terms and extended the Notice of Objection Bar Date.

The plaintiff, a minority shareholder, previously obtained a judgment setting aside a transfer agreement and declaring a constructive trust over her one-third interest in corporate assets diverted by the defendants.

Following the appointment of an expert to trace the diverted assets, the plaintiff brought a motion for an interim payment under section 248 of the OBCA and Rule 20.

The court found that the defendants had improperly used corporate funds to pay their legal fees and the expert's costs, and had diverted several real estate properties and sale proceeds.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $6,098,427 as an interim payment representing her undisputed one-third interest in the diverted assets and improperly paid expenses.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in several real estate corporations, sought leave to commence a derivative action and amended their statement of claim to add new causes of action following the discovery of a multi-million dollar fraud by a co-investor.

The defendants moved to strike the new claims and opposed the derivative action.

The court held that the motion for leave to commence a derivative action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in CIBC v. Green regarding the unavailability of nunc pro tunc orders to circumvent expired limitation periods.

The court also struck the new claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence as statute-barred, but allowed the unjust enrichment and oppression claims to proceed.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that allowed an appeal from a master's severance order.

The plaintiffs, two sisters, alleged historic sexual abuse by their uncle.

The master had severed their claims, but the motion judge reversed this, finding the claims fit within a 'series of occurrences' under Rule 5.02(1)(a) and that joinder was appropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no issue of such importance to warrant granting leave.

The appellants appealed a Master's order severing their civil claims for historic sexual assault against a family member into separate actions.

The court considered the joinder provisions under Rules 5.01 and 5.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the claims arose from the same series of occurrences and whether common issues of fact justified joinder.

The court held that allegations of sexual assault against siblings occurring in the same location and general time period could constitute a series of occurrences and involve common factual issues.

Concerns about similar fact reasoning and potential tailoring of evidence were found to be matters better managed by the trial judge through evidentiary rulings and case management.

The appeal was allowed and the Master's severance order was set aside without prejudice to a future severance motion before the trial judge.

The defendant brought a motion to sever the claims of two plaintiffs who alleged historical sexual abuse by their uncle, arguing the claims did not meet the joinder test under Rule 5.02(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause prejudice if tried together.

The court held the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, did not raise common questions of fact or law, and would require separate evidence and expert testimony.

The court further found that joinder would complicate the proceedings and create prejudice given the significant passage of time and credibility issues.

Even if joinder were technically permissible, the court concluded severance was justified under Rule 5.05 due to undue prejudice.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pursue their claims in separate proceedings.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings involving a retail apparel company, the monitor sought approval of an asset sale agreement for the debtor’s Costa Blanca business and the debtor sought an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The court considered the criteria under ss. 36(3) and (4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and found the sale process had been conducted fairly and transparently and that the proposed transaction provided the best available consideration to creditors, notwithstanding that the purchaser was related to the debtor.

Approval of the sale was granted subject to a condition requiring the transaction to close by a specified deadline, failing which the debtor and monitor were required to seek further court directions.

The court also granted the debtor’s request to extend the stay of proceedings, approve liquidation of certain store inventory and fixtures, continue a key employee retention plan, and authorize repayment of secured loans.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding whether an unconditional settlement offer was made on July 8, 2008, and accepted the following day.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a judgment determining the scope of a guarantee and resulting damages on an application under Rule 14.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a factual dispute regarding the guarantee's scope and an insufficient factual basis to determine damages.

The court set aside the judgment and directed the trial of an issue on the alleged breach of the guarantee and resulting damages.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring Dustbane Enterprises Limited to fund a deficit arising from the partial wind-up of its pension plan.

Dustbane argued that the plan was a multi-employer pension plan and that its distributors were separate employers liable for their respective shares of the deficit.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the plan did not meet the statutory requirements for a multi-employer pension plan, as there were no written participation agreements and the plan was not administered as such.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposed order, making Dustbane solely liable for the deficit.