Maureen Elizabeth Littlejohn

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.

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.

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.

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 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.