Maureen Elizabeth Littlejohn

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $2,608,798 in damages and successfully defended a counterclaim, the court determined costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court rejected the defendants' request for a distributive costs analysis and the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' discovery breaches did not amount to reprehensible conduct.

Costs were fixed at $1,900,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court also calculated pre-judgment interest on the past pecuniary loss at the statutory rate of 2% applied in six-month intervals pursuant to s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, totaling $161,866.13.

The Plaintiff, Behold Control Equipment Inc., and Trevor Strauss (the 'Behold Parties') brought a pre-trial motion seeking a sealing order for 26 documents, comprising technical specifications and pricing/profitability analysis, intended to be tendered as evidence at trial.

They argued the documents contained confidential and commercially sensitive information, the public disclosure of which would harm their competitive ability.

The Defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court declined to grant the sealing order, finding that the Behold Parties had not provided sufficient fact-based evidence to satisfy the Sherman test for confidentiality, particularly regarding whether the information was truly confidential, not in the public domain, and whether reasonable alternatives existed.

The court emphasized that the determination of confidentiality and the necessity of a sealing order were central issues best decided at trial on a full evidentiary record, rather than on an interlocutory pre-trial motion.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal and a motion to quash.

The respondent, successful on the appeal, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $230,000.

The appellants argued for a net award of $30,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity, agreeing that costs for the unsuccessful motion to quash should be deducted.

The court ultimately awarded the respondent $90,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, finding the amounts and issues involved in the appeal significant.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision that denied leave to appeal an arbitration award exceeding $100 million.

The central issue was whether the arbitration agreement precluded appeals on questions of law, specifically interpreting phrases like "finally settled" and "final and binding" in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1991 and ICC Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, thereby confirming that leave to appeal was not available.

The court also addressed and dismissed a motion to quash the appeal, clarifying the narrow circumstances under which a denial of leave to appeal by a Superior Court judge can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

The applicant mining company sought a final order approving a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act to sever ties with the Kyrgyz Republic following the state's seizure of its flagship mine.

Two unsecured judgment creditors of the Republic objected, seeking to enforce their arbitral awards against the Republic's shares in the applicant or garnish payments under the Arrangement.

The court approved the Arrangement, finding it met the statutory requirements, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable.

The court held the creditors lacked standing to oppose the Arrangement and that garnishment was inappropriate as it would result in double jeopardy.

This motion concerned an application by Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC) to enforce two arbitral awards (a Partial Final Award on liability and damages, and a Final Award on costs) against Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation and Baffinland Iron Mines LP (BIM).

BIM raised several defenses, including a pending application to set aside or appeal the awards, which had previously been dismissed by the court.

The court granted TEBC's application to enforce both awards, confirming the awarded amounts for damages and costs, with a condition regarding the transfer of equipment title and excluding "applicable taxes" as not provided for in the original arbitral awards.

Pre-judgment interest was maintained as per the Tribunal's award.

The applicants, Baffinland Iron Mines LP and Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (BIM), sought to set aside an arbitration award of over $70 million and a subsequent costs award in favour of the respondent, Tower-EBC G.P./S.E.N.C. (TEBC), pursuant to s. 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and for leave to appeal under s. 45(1) of the Act.

The court dismissed BIM's application, finding no grounds to set aside the award for lack of jurisdiction or procedural unfairness, and further held that the arbitration agreement precluded an appeal from the Tribunal's decision.

The moving parties, subcontractors on a mining project, sought leave to intervene in an application brought by the project owners to set aside an arbitral award in favour of the general contractor.

The arbitral award included damages for the subcontractors' lost profits and standby charges.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding that the subcontractors' financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a legal interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, which concerned the construction of the contracts between the owners and the general contractor.

The court also held that the subcontractors would not make a useful contribution to the issues on the application.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

Crystallex International Corporation and Tenor Special Situation I, LP sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order that partially dismissed Crystallex's request to seal certain financial information in the Monitor's Thirty-Third Report.

The motion judge had applied the Sierra Club test and found the evidence for sealing speculative.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious and the case was not of significance to the practice, upholding the motion judge's discretionary order.

The court issued a protective order on consent of the parties in a case involving allegations of appropriation and misuse of confidential technical and business information.

The order governs the handling and protection of confidential documents and information exchanged during discovery, requiring advance notice before filing such materials in court, but explicitly stating it does not constitute a sealing order or publication ban.

The court also provided specific case management directions for the litigation.

This is the first case management endorsement for an action accepted into the Civil Case Management Pilot Project.

The court outlined the purpose of case management, emphasizing efficiency and proportionality.

The parties had agreed on a Discovery Plan.

A joint request for a "Confidentiality Order" which constituted a sealing order, was declined without substantive determination because it required a formal motion satisfying the Supreme Court's test for restricting access to the court.

The endorsement provided specific directions for documentary production, examinations for discovery, and the scheduling of future motions, including for a sealing order or security for costs.

It also set the date for the next case management conference and general directions for cooperation and efficiency.

In a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding Lithium Ion Battery Cells, the plaintiffs sought a confidentiality order to protect commercially sensitive documents produced by the defendants during discovery.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and granted the order, finding it was necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important commercial interest and that its salutary effects outweighed any deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The plaintiffs in a competition law class action regarding price-fixing of lithium ion batteries moved for approval of a settlement with the Maxell defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $300,000 USD settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the limited documentary evidence implicating Maxell.

The court also approved class counsel's fee request of $97,997.38 and disbursements of $18,785.79, finding them reasonable given the risk undertaken and results achieved.

The appellants brought a class action against defendant manufacturers and suppliers alleging they conspired to fix the price of lithium-ion batteries sold in Canada between January 2000 and December 2011.

The conspiracy allegedly impacted all purchasers, including "umbrella purchasers" whose batteries originated from non-defendants, as the cartel's price increases caused non-conspirators to also raise prices.

The certification judge certified only a statutory claim under the Competition Act for non-umbrella purchasers.

The Divisional Court certified an unlawful means conspiracy claim but excluded umbrella purchasers, citing indeterminate liability concerns.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the principle of indeterminate liability does not apply to either the statutory claim or the unlawful means conspiracy claim, and that umbrella purchasers should be included in the class with a subclass created for non-umbrella purchasers regarding aggregate damages quantification.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The plaintiffs in a competition law class action regarding price-fixing of lithium-ion batteries brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes against two groups of defendants, NEC and Samsung.

The plaintiffs and the settling defendants reached settlement agreements and agreed on a plan for disseminating the notice of hearing for settlement approval.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met in the settlement context and granted the motion to certify the action for settlement purposes.

The respondent moved to quash an appeal from the dismissal of a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the order dismissing the interlocutory injunction was interlocutory in nature and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

The court held that the characterization of an order as final or interlocutory depends on its legal nature rather than its practical effect.

The court also rejected the appellants' concern that the motion judge's reasons conclusively determined the issue of confidentiality, noting that the issue remained open for trial.