Lindsay Scott

The appellant, Guestlogix Inc., appealed a judgment that awarded the respondent, Marina Antchipalovskaia, twelve months' common law notice for wrongful dismissal.

The core issue was whether the motion judge erred in treating the respondent's employment as continuous from 2011 to 2019, despite a termination and re-hiring in 2016 during Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, which included a court-ordered release of prior claims.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by not giving effect to the 2016 termination and the CCAA release.

However, the court also held that the respondent's prior five years of experience still provided a benefit to the appellant and should be considered in determining the notice period.

The Court of Appeal substituted the twelve-month notice period with a seven-month notice period, recognizing both the effect of the CCAA release and the value of the respondent's previous service.

The applicants, minority co-owners of two commercial properties, sought relief from alleged oppressive conduct, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty by the majority co-owners and property managers following a cash call.

The court found that the respondents' failure to provide timely and meaningful access to financial records unfairly disregarded and prejudiced the applicants' interests under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

However, the court dismissed claims regarding management fees, financing, and conflicts of interest, and found no breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

The court ordered specific terms for future financial disclosure and governance but declined to order a forced buy-out of the applicants' interests.

Costs for the disclosure motion were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Municipality of Port Hope was wholly successful on appeal and cross-appeal.

The applicants sought to avoid a costs award by arguing the matter was brought in a representative capacity on a matter of public interest involving novel legal issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the applicants acted to vindicate private financial interests and that the issues lacked significant societal impact.

The court awarded costs to the Municipality in the agreed-upon sum of $93,319.11, all inclusive.

The applicant sought to enforce an agreement between Canada and three municipalities regarding the storage of low-level radioactive waste.

The applicant alleged that the municipality had misused income earned on a $10 million payment by failing to apply it exclusively to defray lower-tier municipal taxes for ratepayers of the former Hope Township.

The application judge found that Schedule 8 of the agreement created a non-charitable purpose trust and that the municipality had breached its trustee duties.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the agreement was a contract and did not create a trust over the payment or the fund.

The applicants sought leave to appeal and appeal two commercial arbitration awards concerning Cogeco's breach of Wide Area Network (WAN) agreements.

The Arbitrator had applied damages caps and denied specific performance.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the applicants' grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law as required by the Arbitration Act.

The court also found the Arbitrator's decisions to be reasonable on the merits, upholding the application of damages caps and the denial of specific performance due to the applicants' failure to demonstrate the absence of a readily available substitute service.

The applicant sought a declaration that a $10 million host community grant, received by the respondent municipality, was subject to a trust for the exclusive benefit of ratepayers of the former Hope Township (now Ward 2), and an accounting.

The municipality argued it was a contract, no trust was settled, or if it was, it violated the rule against perpetuities and the claim was statute-barred.

The court found the grant constituted a specific non-charitable purpose trust, properly constituted, but violated the vesting rule against perpetuities.

However, it was saved by s. 16(1) of the Perpetuities Act, converting it into a special power to appoint income and capital until April 12, 2022.

The municipality was found in breach of its trustee duties for not adhering to the trust's strict terms and was ordered to provide an accounting.

The claim was not statute-barred nor defeated by laches or acquiescence.

On a constitutional appeal, the appellants sought declarations that Métis and non-status Indians fall within Parliament’s jurisdiction under s. 91(24), that the federal Crown owes them a fiduciary duty, and that they have consultation and negotiation rights.

The Court held that Métis and non-status Indians are “Indians” under s. 91(24), restored the broader trial declaration, and rejected restricting Métis status to the Powley framework for this jurisdictional purpose.

The Court found this declaration had practical utility in ending the federal-provincial jurisdictional impasse.

The Court declined the second and third declarations as restatements of settled law lacking practical utility.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $225,000 in damages arising from an asset purchase agreement, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought $172,362 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 49 as it was made only three days before trial.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $80,000 after finding the hours claimed by the plaintiff's counsel were excessive compared to defence counsel.

The plaintiff sold her real estate business to the defendants under an Asset Purchase Agreement.

Shortly after the defendants took over operations, two key agents resigned.

The defendants refused to close the transaction, alleging the plaintiff misrepresented the agents' contentedness and failed to provide their employment contracts, but the defendants continued to operate the business.

The court found the defendants breached the agreement, holding that the Entire Agreement clause precluded reliance on any alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations.

The plaintiff was awarded $225,000 in damages, representing the unpaid purchase price and an estimated persistency bonus.

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.