Matthew Philip Tunley

A former police informant, John Doe (previously Cecil Kirby), sued the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for breach of contract, breach of privacy, and negligence after the CBC rebroadcast a 1984 interview in 2015.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement that the interview would only be shown once.

The CBC moved for summary judgment, asserting the written contract granted them full rights to the content and denying any oral agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no admissible evidence to support the alleged oral agreement and that the written contract provided lawful justification for the rebroadcast, thereby dismissing all claims.

The appellants, a group of telecommunications carriers, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that increased the province-wide default price for attaching cables to electricity poles.

The appellants argued that the Board breached procedural fairness by conducting a policy review rather than holding a full hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was not statutorily required to hold a hearing under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and that the policy review process adopted by the Board was procedurally fair and entitled to deference.

The appellants (Roustan/RINC) appealed a trial decision that found Grant Thornton LLP (GT) breached a contract but awarded no damages for share losses, dismissing their action.

GT cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's causation analysis or refusal to award various damages (lost opportunity, share loss, special, nominal), and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's costs award as not an error in principle or plainly wrong.

This costs endorsement followed a prior decision where the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract was dismissed due to a lack of proven damages, despite a finding of breach.

The court determined that the defendant, Grant Thornton LLP (GT), was the more successful party, notwithstanding some mixed success, as the plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and defamation were dismissed outright, and no remedy flowed from any of the plaintiffs' findings.

The defendant's offer to settle did not meet the requirements of Rule 49.10(2)(b), thus no costs consequences flowed from its non-acceptance.

Applying the "fair and reasonable" principle for fixing costs and considering Rule 57.01 factors, including the moderate complexity and the $10 million claim, the court awarded GT partial indemnity costs in the all-inclusive amount of $175,000.00.

Following the release of trial reasons finding the defendant breached its contract but awarding no damages, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to amend the reasons.

The plaintiffs sought nominal damages, special damages, damages for the purchase of new shares, and damages for loss of chance.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that nominal damages were inappropriate where general damages were unproven, special damages lacked causal link, and the other claims were either already disposed of or not raised at trial.

The moving parties, a group of telecommunications companies, brought a motion for directions seeking disclosure and production of internal documents and communications from the Ontario Energy Board to form the record for their challenge of a new Pole Attachment Charge.

The court applied the 'meaningful judicial review test' to determine the required contents of the record, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not apply.

The court concluded that the requested documents, including drafts, internal correspondence, and identities of report authors, were not necessary for a meaningful review of the moving parties' complaints regarding process, burden of proof, and ignored submissions.

The motion for disclosure and production was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision ordering him to pay costs personally, despite not being a party to the underlying zoning appeal.

The Board had found him to be the 'real litigant' behind a residents' association.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in principle by failing to articulate and apply the proper legal test for determining whether a non-party is a 'real litigant' using a 'straw man' to shield themselves from costs.

The costs order against the appellant was set aside.

The appellant telecommunications carriers appealed an Ontario Energy Board (OEB) order approving an increase in the pole attachment rate charged by Hydro Ottawa.

The appellants argued the OEB breached procedural fairness and fettered its discretion by applying a 2005 methodology that the OEB acknowledged required review, and by refusing to hear evidence on a new methodology during the Hydro Ottawa hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OEB reasonably deferred the methodology issue to an ongoing province-wide policy review.

The Court held that the OEB, as master of its own procedure, afforded appropriate procedural fairness and its decisions regarding the rate adjustment and the final nature of the order were reasonable.

The Plaintiffs brought a refusals motion seeking answers to questions refused during the examinations for discovery of the Attorney General of Canada's representatives.

The questions pertained to information gathered during inquiries into the torture of Canadian citizens by foreign governments, the adoption of non-party inquiry testimony, production of in camera inquiry transcripts, and underlying evidence for allegations made against the Plaintiffs.

The court analyzed each refusal discretely, rejecting a global proportionality argument, and ordered some questions to be answered while upholding refusals for others, particularly those asking the AGC to adopt non-party testimony.

The media applicants brought an application for a declaration that the police practice of impersonating journalists for criminal investigation and surveillance of public protests violates s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court found no evidence that plainclothes officers engaging in surveillance held themselves out as journalists.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not support a finding that the practice of plainclothes surveillance in the presence of media had a chilling effect on news gathering.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their counterclaim for damages and an injunction against their neighbours.

The appellants alleged that the respondents' construction of a six-hole golf course caused excessive surface water flooding on their property.

The trial judge found no material change exacerbating the flooding and concluded the golf course construction did not cause a nuisance.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial judge's findings of fact and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff broadcaster sought partial summary judgment to enforce payment of two dishonoured post‑dated cheques issued by the defendant in connection with a sports broadcasting agreement.

The defendant argued that equitable set‑off should apply because the cheques were issued for services to be rendered and the dispute did not involve international commerce.

The court held that under the Bills of Exchange Act equitable set‑off is not available as a defence to an action on a dishonoured cheque, and that the rule applies regardless of whether the transaction involves international trade or services yet to be performed.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the value of the dishonoured cheques.

However, because the defendant’s counterclaim raised triable issues, execution of the judgment was stayed on condition that the defendant pay the judgment amount with interest into court.

The appellants, private electrical contractors, appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board which held that affiliates of municipally-owned electricity distributors are permitted to provide street lighting services under section 73(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, without geographic restriction.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued family members for defamation arising from oral and written accusations that he had sexually abused two nieces as children, and the defendants counterclaimed in sexual battery and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

After a lengthy trial with expert evidence on trauma, memory, delayed reporting, recantation, and false memory, the court held that the abuse allegations were not proven on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the counterclaim.

The court found the impugned accusations plainly defamatory, rejected justification, and held that the broad dissemination of the allegations to extended family and others did not fall within qualified privilege.

The court further held that the statement warning that others might also be sexually abused was unsupported and malicious.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff with $125,000 in general damages and costs.

Summitt Energy Management Inc. appealed an Ontario Energy Board order imposing a $234,000 administrative penalty, a compliance order, and restitution to consumers for unfair door-to-door sales practices.

Summitt argued reasonable apprehension of bias, incorrect standard of proof, lack of jurisdiction for restitution, and procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's independent legal counsel did not create bias, the proceedings were regulatory (requiring a civil standard of proof), and the Board had broad statutory authority to order restitution.

Following a prior decision granting partial relief to the applicants with no order as to costs, the respondents sought to vary the costs order based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The respondents argued they were entitled to substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs following the offer because the judgment was no more favourable than the offer.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs and declined to vary the earlier order.

Considering the divided success and circumstances of the litigation, the court held that the original no-costs order remained appropriate.

The applicants sought to set aside a share valuation conducted pursuant to a unanimous shareholders' agreement following the exercise of a put right requiring the purchase of their minority shareholding.

The agreement required the valuator to determine fair market value using generally accepted valuation principles and provided that the valuator's determination would be final and binding.

The court held that judicial intervention is limited to circumstances where the valuator fails to comply with the contractual mandate, not merely where alleged valuation errors occur.

Most complaints raised by the applicants related to matters of professional judgment and therefore did not justify court intervention.

However, the valuator failed to comply with generally accepted valuation standards regarding the analysis of working capital.

Rather than setting aside the entire valuation report, the court ordered a limited independent analysis to determine the appropriate working capital adjustment while leaving the remainder of the valuation intact.

The Divisional Court issued an addendum to its initial endorsement to correct factual errors in paragraph 4 regarding bypass compensation and stranded transmission connection facilities.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that renewed its franchise agreement with the Town of Aylmer for a three-year term instead of the requested twenty-year term.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and jurisdiction by relying on prior orders that were subsequently set aside and by failing to properly consider the public interest and adverse impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was discretionary and fact-intensive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any extricable error of law or jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a procedural decision of the Ontario Energy Board regarding their application to declare bypass compensation provisions of the Transmission System Code ultra vires.

The Board had determined the application was not a standalone application but was linked to an earlier Leave to Construct decision, and gave the appellants three procedural options to proceed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was interlocutory and discretionary, and raised no true question of law or jurisdiction.