Matthew Paul Michell

Rogers appealed a partial arbitral award regarding its distribution agreement with Glentel, which it co-owns with Bell.

The arbitrator had ruled that Rogers could not require Glentel to offer a Rogers Bank credit card bundled with telecommunications services, nor pay incremental commissions for it, as it was not an 'ancillary service' under the agreement.

The Superior Court determined that the appellate standard of review applies to statutory appeals under the Arbitration Act, 1991, following Vavilov.

Applying this standard, the court found no extricable errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the arbitrator's contractual interpretation or jurisdictional scope.

The appeal was dismissed.

Rogers Communications Inc. brought an unopposed motion for a sealing order and to file a redacted record in its appeal of a confidential arbitration award involving BCE Inc. and Glentel Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rogers failed to meet the strict test for limiting the open court principle set out in Sherman Estate.

The court held that merely treating agreements as confidential in a private arbitration does not establish a serious risk to an important public interest justifying a sealing order in a public court proceeding.

The court dismissed a motion for partial summary judgment brought by the defendants, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP and its partners, in a professional negligence action arising from advice and services provided in connection with an employee stock trust and a 2012 financing transaction.

The court found that the case involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and conflicting expert evidence regarding the scope of the defendants’ retainer and standard of care.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate given the need for a full trial to resolve these issues, and also noted the risk of inconsistent findings due to parallel actions involving related parties and issues.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court order staying proceedings due to the appellants' unauthorized possession and review of the respondents' privileged documents.

The parties were involved in a failed joint venture to establish a Schedule 1 bank.

The appellants, particularly Scott Penfound, obtained and accessed voluminous privileged emails and legal strategy documents belonging to the respondents from a shared file server.

The motion judge found a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, which the appellants failed to rebut by not providing evidence of the scope of their review.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that significant, ongoing prejudice existed that could not be cured by a lesser remedy, especially given the client's direct access to the information and lack of transparency.

Pharmacy and retailer appellants challenged provincial regulations that barred private-label generic drugs from formulary listing and interchangeable designation.

The Court reaffirmed that delegated legislation is presumed valid and is ultra vires only if inconsistent with statutory purpose or outside delegated authority.

It held the regulations aligned with the legislative scheme aimed at reducing prescription drug costs and promoting transparent pricing while maintaining safety.

The measures were rationally connected to preventing circumvention of rebate and allowance restrictions through affiliated manufacturers.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and Katz Group Canada Inc., sought costs after being wholly successful in their judicial review applications against the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The respondents argued the claimed costs were excessive and duplicative.

The Divisional Court rejected the duplication argument, noting the complexity and importance of the first-instance proceeding.

The court awarded Katz Group its full claimed costs, but reduced Shoppers Drug Mart's fee claim from $104,354 to $80,000 due to excessive hours and duplication among its legal team.

The deceased's ex-wife and his common-law partner both claimed entitlement to his surviving spousal pension benefit.

The OMERS Appeal Sub-committee found in favour of the common-law partner.

The ex-wife successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the legal obligation to give reasons is correctness, not reasonableness.

Applying a functional approach, the Court found the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient as they explained why the decision was made and permitted effective judicial review.

The appeal was allowed and the application for judicial review dismissed.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, brought a wrongful dismissal action in Ontario against his former employer, a group of related corporations.

The defendants moved to stay the action, arguing that Indiana was the more appropriate forum because the plaintiff had accepted permanent employment there.

The plaintiff maintained his employment in Indiana was a temporary assignment governed by an earlier Ontario agreement.

The motion judge accepted the defendants' version and stayed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in resolving the disputed facts on a preliminary motion.

Because the plaintiff's version had a reasonable evidentiary basis, the forum non conveniens factors should have been assessed on that basis.

The appeal was allowed and the stay motion dismissed.

The appellant, RBC Dominion Securities, sued its former branch manager and several investment advisors who left en masse to join a competitor, Merrill Lynch.

The trial judge found the branch manager breached his implied contractual duty of good faith by orchestrating the departure, and awarded substantial damages for loss of profits.

The trial judge also awarded damages against the investment advisors for unfair competition during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal overturned these awards.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the damages against the branch manager for breach of good faith, but upholding the Court of Appeal's decision that the investment advisors were not liable for unfair competition during the notice period.

The applicant sought judicial review of an OMERS Appeal Sub-Committee decision that found the respondent was the common-law spouse of the deceased and entitled to his pension death benefits.

The applicant argued the tribunal breached procedural fairness and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the tribunal's pre-hearing procedures were fair, its written reasons were too brief and conclusory to allow for meaningful review.

The court could not determine if the tribunal properly applied the legal test for common-law status or correctly placed the burden of proof.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

In a complex CCAA restructuring of Stelco Inc., four appeals were brought regarding the distribution of assets among creditors.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that Senior Debt Holders could enforce subordination and turnover provisions against Noteholders via trust principles, and that post-filing interest was payable.

However, the Court reversed the motion judge on two key issues: it found that a massive IT outsourcing contract was not in the 'ordinary course of business', thereby elevating its assignee to Senior Debt status, and it ruled that the distributed securities must be valued at the 'Plan value' ($5.50 per share) rather than the post-emergence market value.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of a termination clause in an agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the termination clause to be crystal clear and fully agreeing with the motion judge's analysis and conclusion.

The appellants appealed a decision finding oppressive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty.

The motion judge found that the corporation was represented to the respondent investor as the owner of a specific technology, but the individual appellant deliberately withheld title to the patents for his own purposes.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings, noting that the investor was entitled to rely on the representations made and that the doctrine of reasonable expectations applied.

The court also upheld the remedy, which included declaring the corporation the owner of the process and directing an accounting for profits derived from a related contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent lost its major customer due to a bribery scheme orchestrated by a consultant hired by the appellant, a rival supplier.

The respondent sued the appellant, arguing it was vicariously liable for the consultant's tortious conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was not vicariously liable because the consultant was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on a holistic assessment of the relationship.

The Court also held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to reopen the trial to admit fresh evidence from the consultant.

The appellant sold a surplus grain terminal to a purchaser with an agreement intended to include a restrictive covenant preventing the property's use for grain handling.

The property was later sold in a tax sale to a new purchaser who intended to use it for grain handling.

The appellant sued for a declaration that the restrictive covenant ran with the land and sought rectification of the original agreement if the covenant was found defective.

The motion judge struck out the rectification claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and declared the covenant did not survive the tax sale.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the rectification claim could not succeed, and set aside the declaratory orders.