Lipi Mishra

The appellants, private practice oral surgeons, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their operating room access and hospital privileges.

The board made the decision without a hearing, relying on s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which allows a hospital to revoke privileges when ceasing to provide a service.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the board's interpretation of s. 44 was reasonable, that the termination of the specific operating room access constituted ceasing a 'service', and that the board was not required to hold a hearing or consider the appellants' affidavits.

The representative plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of Ontario franchisees, sought production of documents from the defendants (Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Shoppers Drug Mart (London) Ltd.) to support a “bottom-up” damages assessment for individual class members under section 25 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Court of Appeal had previously found Shoppers liable for breach of contract and duty of good faith, and ordered that damages be determined through an individual issues process.

The defendants opposed production on grounds of proportionality, prematurity, and lack of expert evidence.

Justice Glustein granted the motion, ordering production of the requested documents for all class members subject to the 2002 Associate Agreement for the relevant years, finding the request reasonable and proportionate in light of the litigation’s scope and the evidence before the court.

The appellants, representing a class of Ontario Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees, appealed a summary judgment decision regarding their entitlement to Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Shoppers breached the 2002 franchise agreement by retaining the allowances, which constituted 'revenue', but did not breach the 2010 agreement, which explicitly allowed Shoppers to retain such concessions.

The Court also upheld the application of a rolling limitation period and the refusal to award aggregate damages due to the idiosyncratic nature of the profit-sharing model.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantification of damages, finding that Shoppers breached its duty of good faith by arbitrarily allocating $129 million as out-of-province rebates to avoid sharing the funds with Ontario franchisees, bringing the total Professional Allowances received to $1.084 billion.

In this certified class action, the plaintiff franchisees (Associates) brought a motion for summary judgment against the franchisor, Shoppers Drug Mart, alleging breaches of contract, breaches of the duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment regarding various fees and the retention of Professional Allowances paid by generic drug manufacturers.

Shoppers brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, arguing they lacked merit and were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the claims regarding the Optimum Fee and Shoppers Charges, finding no breach of contract or bad faith.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim for Professional Allowances but found that Shoppers breached the 2002 Associates Agreement (but not the 2010 Agreement) by failing to remit Professional Allowances to the Associates.

The court held that aggregate damages were not viable and directed that the surviving breach of contract and distribution centre claims proceed to individual issues trials, subject to limitation periods.

The moving defendants brought motions to enforce settlement agreements dismissing two construction-related actions without costs.

The plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing the settlements were entered into due to misrepresentations, unconscionability, and misapprehension, and brought a cross-motion to join the actions to separate ongoing litigation.

The court found that a valid settlement was reached and rejected the plaintiff's arguments, noting that the alleged misrepresentations were based on double hearsay and the plaintiff was represented by capable counsel.

The court granted the motions to enforce the settlements and dismissed the cross-motion.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and certification of a class proceeding against Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and its officers.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to disclose a material tax liability arising from a CRA audit regarding transfer pricing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial because the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the defendants' disclosures accurately reflected management's reasonable assessment of the tax risk.

The court also declined to certify the common law and prospectus misrepresentation claims, finding a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure and the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.