Matthew Ian Milne-Smith

A reference to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada.

The majority (Tulloch C.J.O., Gillese, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.) answered affirmatively, finding that section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code permits Ontario to conduct and manage a lottery scheme with international pooled liquidity, provided Ontario continues to conduct and manage the Ontario-based aspects of the scheme in accordance with provincial law.

The majority rejected the application of the real and substantial connection test and distinguished the Earth Future decisions.

Van Rensburg J.A. dissented, arguing that the Proposed Model would contravene the Criminal Code because it would require Ontario to conduct and manage aspects of the lottery scheme outside Ontario's territorial boundaries, contrary to the plain meaning of "in that province" in section 207(1)(a).

An appeal from a Superior Court decision regarding the provability of a former employee's profit-sharing claim in the bankruptcy of a real estate development company.

The trustee disallowed the claim on the grounds that it was an equity claim and too contingent and remote.

The appeal judge allowed the appeal, finding the profit-sharing claim was a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract, not an equity claim, and was therefore provable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision and confirming that the profit-sharing claim is a provable claim that takes priority over the limited partners' equity claims.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following a trial between Heywood Innovative Solutions Inc. and The State Group Inc. regarding unpaid invoices and a counterclaim for damages.

The court found divided success, with Heywood more successful overall, and awarded partial indemnity costs and disbursements, but at a significantly reduced amount due to concerns about proportionality and litigation conduct.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to adduce evidence and for a confidentiality order in the context of a reference regarding the legality of an online provincial lottery scheme permitting international play.

The court granted leave to the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Canadian Lottery Coalition Members to file their proposed evidence, finding it potentially helpful for the reference panel.

The court dismissed the Canadian Gaming Association's motion for a confidentiality order, ruling that alleged reputational harm was a private interest insufficient to override court openness, especially as the information was largely public.

This appeal arose from two actions tried together concerning breaches of a license agreement and fiduciary duties related to powder-coating business ventures.

The trial judge found that Robert Langlois breached a License Agreement and fiduciary duties to the "ACS plaintiffs" (7868073 Canada Ltd. et al.), with Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisting.

Profits were disgorged to the ACS plaintiffs, and a separate action by Gary Sugar was dismissed as moot.

The appellants (Gary Sugar and the "Langlois appellants") challenged the trial judge's findings on the License Agreement's validity and termination, the existence and continuation of fiduciary duties, and the misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The ACS plaintiffs cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and denied leave to cross-appeal costs, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the License Agreement was valid and not terminated, that fiduciary duties continued, and that corporate opportunities were misappropriated.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

Rogers Communications Canada Inc. sought an interlocutory injunction and a sealing order against TELUS Communications Inc. The core dispute revolved around whether Rogers' customers, when roaming on the TELUS network, should display "Rogers-EXT" or "TELUS" as the network identifier (NID).

Rogers argued for maintaining the "Rogers-EXT" status quo pending arbitration, while TELUS contended that an expired agreement required "TELUS" display.

The court characterized the injunction sought as mandatory, requiring Rogers to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court found that the NID issue was subject to issue estoppel due to a prior arbitration decision and that Rogers failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

Consequently, the motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.

The motion for a sealing order for confidential materials, which was unopposed, was granted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

The appellants, Limited Partners of a debtor in a bankruptcy proposal, appealed an order for directions regarding the process for an appeal of a proof of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that the motion judge had not made any final orders regarding the appellants' standing in the anticipated claim appeal, but rather had made directions "subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the appeal." The court held that the possibility of influence or an incorrect underlying conclusion on discretionary standing was not a basis for appeal.

The Limited Partners of YG Limited Partnership appealed a motion judge's order denying them standing to oppose a creditor's (CBRE Limited) appeal of a disallowed proof of claim under s. 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, holding that limited partners do not possess a direct economic interest in the claim sufficient for common law standing, nor are they granted standing under s. 135(4) or s. 37 of the BIA.

The court emphasized that the BIA is a complete code designed for expeditious resolution of bankruptcy matters, and equity owners are generally excluded from direct participation in creditor claim appeals.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The Proposal Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the procedure for determining a complex proof of claim filed by Maria Athanasoulis, comprising a wrongful dismissal claim and a significant profit share claim, within the context of a court-approved proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion addressed disagreements among stakeholders (Athanasoulis, Sponsor, and Limited Partners) on how to proceed with the claim's determination and subsequent appeal, particularly concerning the scope of evidence, the nature of the appeal (true appeal vs. de novo), and the standing of the Limited Partners.

The court provided detailed directions to ensure procedural fairness and efficiency, deferring the valuation of future-oriented damages until after the provability of the profit share claim is determined on appeal, and limiting the Limited Partners' standing to specific issues.

This motion sought a stay pending leave to appeal an order authorizing the sale of a 51% interest in Downsview Homes Inc. (DHI) within ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The moving party, the Foreign Representative of Urbancorp Inc., argued the sale process should be postponed until a related arbitration regarding a disputed payment was resolved, fearing a chilling effect on potential bids.

The supervising judge had previously dismissed these concerns as speculative.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding the grounds for appeal weak, no irreparable harm to the moving party, and the balance of convenience favoring the respondents (the Monitor and Mattamy Homes Limited, the debtor-in-possession lender).

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant, a former bank executive, entered into a cash-settled forward contract with a securities dealer shortly before accessing a credit facility secured by the same shares underlying the forward contract.

The appellant characterized losses from the forward contract as income losses on the basis that the contract was speculative, while the Minister reassessed and characterized them as capital losses on the basis that the contract was a hedge of capital shares.

The majority held that the characterization of a derivative contract turns on its purpose, ascertained objectively through linkage analysis, and that the forward contract's nearly perfect neutralization of price fluctuations in the underlying shares, considered alongside the loan and pledge agreements, demonstrated the requisite linkage to constitute a hedge.

The dissent would have restored the trial judge's findings of fact, holding that intent — assessed through both subjective statements and objective manifestations — is necessary to find a hedge, and that the credit facility and securities pledge agreement entered into with a separate entity were irrelevant to the characterization of the forward contract.

Appeal dismissed, Côté J. dissenting.

The Monitor of a CCAA-protected company appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to disallow a creditor's claim secured by a guarantee.

The creditor, Speedy Electrical Contractors Ltd., had provided a personal loan and performed electrical work for Urbancorp entities.

When Speedy threatened legal proceedings and held a construction lien, the parties entered into a debt extension agreement whereby Speedy agreed to discharge its lien and extend the loan in exchange for a secured guarantee from King Residential Inc. (a related Urbancorp entity) over condominium units.

The Monitor argued the guarantee was a transfer at undervalue under section 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The motion judge found Speedy and KRI were dealing at arm's length and that fraudulent intent was not established.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.

This addendum corrects an error in a previous costs decision (2018 ONSC 4862) regarding the amount of costs requested by Brewers Retail Inc. The original decision mistakenly stated Brewers Retail requested $600,000 on a partial indemnity basis, when the correct amount, based on an amended bill of costs, was $744,396.42, all inclusive, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court confirmed the costs award subject to this correction.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action.

The respondents were entirely successful on appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

West Face Capital Inc. sought $250,000 in costs while Brandon Moyse sought $149,905.18.

The appellant argued for reduced costs amounts.

The Court of Appeal awarded West Face $200,000 and Moyse $100,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the respondents' complete success, the nature of the appeal involving a large record and detailed factual re-litigation, and costs thrown away due to an unnecessary adjournment.