Luis Sarabia

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) appealed a lower court's interpretation of its standard-form "feed-in-tariff" (FIT 1) contracts with solar energy suppliers.

The dispute centered on whether suppliers breached contracts by "optimizing" their facilities (installing more efficient solar panels) without IESO's consent, specifically regarding changes to DC energy capacity and DC/AC ratio.

The application judge found that consent was only required for features outlined in the application or contract cover page, which did not include DC capacity or DC/AC ratio.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, dismissing IESO's appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's reasoning regarding contract interpretation or the impact of optimizations on metering plans.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where solar energy suppliers (the "Suppliers") successfully argued that their "Optimizations" did not constitute "Contract Facility Amendments" under their Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contracts with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

The Suppliers sought approximately $2 million in partial indemnity costs, while the IESO proposed around $817,000.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors, found the issues complex and high-stakes for both parties.

Despite the Suppliers' higher learning curve and efficient litigation, the court deemed their claimed hours disproportionate.

The court fixed the aggregate partial indemnity legal fees at $1 million, plus disbursements of $270,000 (less specific deductions), finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate given all circumstances.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) sought to prevent solar energy suppliers from increasing their DC capacity, arguing it constituted a 'Contract Facility Amendment' requiring IESO consent under Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) 1.3 and 1.5 contracts.

The suppliers argued that such 'Optimizations' did not require consent as they did not alter features explicitly outlined in the contract application or cover page, and did not exceed AC capacity limits.

The court found that the Optimizations were not Contract Facility Amendments requiring IESO notice and consent, as DC capacity was not an 'outlined' feature in the contracts.

The suppliers' applications for declarations were granted, and the IESO's counter-applications were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought leave under the Securities Act to commence a class action against Barrick Gold Corporation and certain officers/directors for alleged misrepresentations in public disclosures concerning the Pascua-Lama mining project.

The court dismissed most of the alleged misrepresentations due to a lack of precision in pleading and insufficient credible evidence, particularly regarding accounting and contingent liability claims, and October 2011, May 2012, November 2012, and March 2013 capex/scheduling claims.

However, the court found a reasonable possibility of success for certain capex budget and scheduling misrepresentations made in February and March 2012, but required further submissions on the issue of public correction for these.

Claims against two individual defendants were dismissed due to their tenure or lack of evidence.

FSD Pharma Inc. applied to validate the cancellation of Class B shares issued to its former CEO, Raza Bokhari, arguing they were issued for future consideration contrary to s. 23 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Bokhari contended the shares were valid or that the issue should be pursued under s. 130 OBCA, and that FSD was estopped from raising the issue.

The court found that shares issued for future consideration are not a nullity but their status depends on circumstances.

Applying a flexible approach, the court allowed Bokhari to retain shares proportionate to his actual employment days in 2021 (208/365ths) and permitted FSD to cancel the remainder.

The court also rejected the cause of action estoppel argument, noting the prior hearing was limited in scope.

Costs were not awarded to either party due to divided success and tactical efforts by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its decision on an appeal concerning leave to proceed under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appellants had challenged the motion judge's denial of leave for certain alleged financial misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in principle on this central issue, remitting it for redetermination.

As the appellants were substantially successful on the appeal, they were awarded $60,000 in all-inclusive costs for the appeal.

The costs of the original motion for leave were deferred to the judge determining the remitted issue.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a securities class action, appealed a motion judge's order that granted leave for one misrepresentation claim but denied leave for others under the Ontario Securities Act.

The primary issues on appeal concerned the motion judge's approach to determining "public correction" of alleged misrepresentations, particularly by assuming falsity and applying a narrow textual analysis without considering market context.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle by not engaging in a reasoned consideration of evidence regarding how alleged public corrections would be understood in the secondary market.

The Court remitted the issues of leave for capital expense/scheduling and accounting/financial reporting misrepresentations back to the lower court for redetermination, while upholding the denial of leave for certain environmental misrepresentations due to chronology issues.

The plaintiff pension fund sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a $3 billion secondary market securities class action against the defendant mining company.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations in three categories: capital expenditure and scheduling, environmental compliance, and accounting and financial reporting.

The court dismissed the motion for leave regarding the capital expenditure and accounting allegations, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the public correction requirement.

However, the court granted leave to proceed with one core environmental allegation, finding a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff could establish at trial that the defendant's July 26, 2012 representation about the completion of a water management system was an untrue statement of material fact.

Martin Gerard, as plaintiff in a class action against Detour Gold Corporation and Gerald Panneton, moved for court approval of a settlement agreement, a distribution plan, class counsel fees of $1,620,000 plus disbursements and taxes, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The court, having previously certified the class action for settlement purposes, found the $6 million settlement and distribution plan to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering factors such as the likelihood of success, the arm's-length negotiations, and the absence of objections.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs, Martin Gerard and Terry Wright, acknowledging their significant efforts.

Martin Gerard brought a proposed class action against Detour Gold Corporation and Gerald Panneton alleging misrepresentations in public disclosures regarding gold production guidance, cash cost projections, and operating covenants.

The parties reached a settlement, and Mr. Gerard sought certification of the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes and incidental relief.

The court granted the motion, finding all criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied, and approved the proposed common issues for settlement purposes.

The plaintiffs in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of draft reports, correspondence, and invoices from the defendants' expert witness.

The expert had retained his own independent legal counsel to assist in researching and drafting his affidavit.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the expert's consultation with his own independent counsel did not compromise his independence or impartiality.

Applying the principles from Moore v. Getahun, the court found that absent a factual foundation showing improper influence, the draft reports and communications were protected by litigation privilege.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion to stay an action.

The defendants, as moving parties, sought to stay the action, but their motion was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

The parties failed to agree on the scale and quantum of costs.

The court found the plaintiff's pre-motion offer to settle the motion was reasonable and should have been accepted, while the defendants' post-motion offer was not severable and included extraneous terms.

Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $17,800, calculated on a blended partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants moved to stay an action brought by the plaintiff in Ontario, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or was not the convenient forum, proposing Andorra as the appropriate venue.

The dispute concerned entitlement to €400,000 held in escrow under an Escrow Agreement, which contained a non-exclusive choice of law and forum selection clause in favour of Ontario.

The court found the essential nature of the lawsuit was rooted in the Escrow Agreement, which dictated Ontario law and forum.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding no exceptional circumstances to disregard the forum selection clause and that Ontario was the more convenient forum.

The plaintiffs in a certified securities class action sought judicial approval of a $17 million settlement and class counsel's legal fees of approximately $4.1 million.

The court expressed concern over the use of boiler-plate affidavits in settlement approvals and required class counsel to provide supplementary evidence demonstrating that the settlement amount fell within a zone of reasonableness.

After reviewing the additional information regarding litigation risks and damages ranges, the court found the settlement to be in the best interests of the class and approved both the settlement and the requested legal fees.

The court addressed a costs dispute concerning a claimed accounting disbursement incurred during motion proceedings involving a family trust dispute.

The responding parties argued that the accounting work performed by an accounting firm was duplicative of the work performed by an expert witness retained by the moving party.

The court found that the accounting firm and the expert witness served distinct roles and that the accounting work was reasonably necessary in light of accounting evidence advanced by the opposing parties.

The court also noted that the responding parties themselves had retained multiple accounting professionals.

The challenged disbursement was therefore allowed.

Following a successful interim motion, the plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs including legal fees and significant disbursements.

The defendants challenged the seniority of plaintiff’s counsel, the necessity of multiple cross-examinations, and certain expert-related disbursements.

The court rejected arguments that senior counsel or the scope of cross-examination rendered the costs unreasonable and held that the successful party was entitled to recover reasonable litigation expenses incurred to respond to the defendants’ positions.

Expert accounting fees incurred to respond to the opposing expert were allowed.

The court fixed legal fees at $75,000 plus HST and allowed most disbursements, reserving determination of one accounting disbursement pending further submissions.

The plaintiff brought a motion for interim relief under the oppression provisions of the OBCA against his parents and various family corporations.

He sought an interim distribution of proceeds from a US litigation and the continuation of monthly payments he had historically received.

The court declined to order the interim distribution due to the contingent nature of the funds, but ordered the funds protected and settlement information disclosed.

The court also declined to order the continuation of historical monthly payments, finding them to be personal gifts.

However, the court found a strong prima facie case of oppression regarding unequal cash advances made to other shareholders from a family holding company, and ordered interim equalization payments and a halt to non-dividend cash advances.

A carriage motion was brought to determine which of two competing groups of class action firms should conduct a proposed securities class proceeding against a mining company and its executives arising from alleged misrepresentations about a Chilean mining project.

One action advanced a single claim based on environmental misrepresentations, while the competing action advanced multiple claims including environmental, capital expenditure, accounting misrepresentation, conspiracy, and limitation‑related doctrines.

The court held that on a carriage motion the judge should not determine which claim is most likely to succeed but should assess whether claims are viable and free of obvious defects.

The competing action advancing multiple viable claims and demonstrating a substantially higher level of preparation was found to better serve the interests of the class.

Carriage was therefore granted to the more comprehensive and better prepared action.

In CCAA proceedings involving the Nortel group, the joint administrators of certain European, Middle Eastern, and African debtor entities brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents from a non‑party accounting firm relating to transfer pricing arrangements and intellectual property development.

The court reviewed the governing principles for non‑party production, including the requirement that such orders be granted only in exceptional circumstances and where it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the documents.

The court found that many of the requested documents had already been communicated to the client and were likely produced through existing discovery processes.

For documents not communicated to the client, the moving party failed to demonstrate their importance or any evidentiary gap justifying exceptional production.

The court concluded that proceeding to trial without the requested materials would not be unfair and dismissed the motion with costs.

The plaintiffs sought consent certification of a proposed securities class action alleging that the defendant mining company and certain officers misrepresented the scope and impact of water inflow problems at a Quebec gold mine, causing losses to purchasers of the company’s shares.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and, given the parties’ consent and the evidentiary record, found that the statutory criteria were satisfied.

The plaintiffs also sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act to pursue statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims.

The court held that the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

Certification and leave were granted.