Maxim Gabriel Shapiro

The appellant, ITP SA, appealed a Master's decision granting a stay of an Ontario action commenced by the respondent, Nexen Energy ULC.

The parties' contract contained a forum selection clause designating Ontario courts and Alberta law.

Following a pipeline rupture, Nexen commenced a multi-party action in Alberta and a protective action in Ontario against ITP.

ITP sought to use the Ontario action solely to determine two limitation of liability clauses under the forum selection clause, while agreeing the rest of the action could proceed in Alberta.

The Master stayed the Ontario action, finding 'strong cause' to deviate from the forum selection clause because ITP could not 'slice and dice' the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct test and made no palpable and overriding error.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's action from Brampton to Windsor.

The plaintiff, a self-described problem gambler, sued the defendants for losses sustained at Caesars Windsor.

The court applied a holistic analysis of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the events occurred in Windsor, the damages were sustained there, the community had an interest, and a trial could be heard much sooner in Windsor, the court concluded that Windsor was a significantly better venue.

The motion to transfer was granted.

Nexen Energy commenced identical actions in Alberta and Ontario against ITP SA for damages arising from a pipeline rupture.

While the Purchase Order specified Ontario as the exclusive dispute resolution forum, ITP SA defended the Alberta action and sought to use the Ontario forum selection clause to have a discrete issue of law (interpretation of liability limits) adjudicated in Ontario via a Rule 21 motion before the Ontario action was stayed.

Nexen Energy moved to stay its own Ontario action.

The Master found "special circumstances" overriding the forum selection clause, preventing ITP SA from "slicing and dicing" the case.

The Master granted Nexen Energy's motion, permanently staying the Ontario action, and directed ITP SA's motion to Alberta, citing judicial economy, efficiency, and consistency, given the active case management in Alberta and the multi-party nature of the dispute.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its construction deficiency action for delay.

The action, which sought $5,000,000 in damages primarily related to elevator issues, was dismissed after the plaintiff inadvertently missed the set down deadline.

The court applied the test from H.B. Fuller Company v. Rogers, finding that the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, moved promptly to set aside the order, and demonstrated that the failure was inadvertent.

Crucially, the court found no significant prejudice to the defendants, as the case relied heavily on documentary evidence which had been preserved.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The applicant, U.S. Steel Canada Inc., sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to July 28, 2016.

United States Steel Corporation (USS) opposed, seeking a shorter extension and the imposition of conditions for disclosure of Phase II bids and an updated liquidation analysis.

The court granted the extension as requested by the applicant, finding that the applicant acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that a longer stay furthered the prospect of a successful restructuring.

The court denied USS's requests for a shorter extension and conditions, deeming them premature and potentially detrimental to the restructuring process, and found insufficient evidence of value destruction.

The applicants (Representative Counsel for non-unionized employees and retirees, USW Locals 1005 and 8782, and the City of Hamilton) sought "for counsel's eyes only" disclosure of a confidential settlement agreement between United States Steel Corporation (USS), U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), and the Government of Canada.

The motion was brought in the context of CCAA proceedings, with applicants arguing procedural fairness and a minor exemption from settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they would be prejudiced without access to the specific details of the undertakings in the agreement, or how the information was material to their claims or negotiations.

The court emphasized that there is no exemption from settlement privilege for the purpose of reviewing a document to determine if a public interest exists that would displace the privilege.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

The applicant franchisor sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against a former franchisee who continued to operate a similar home medical equipment business at the same location after the franchise agreement expired.

The respondents argued the covenant was unenforceable due to a failure to provide a disclosure document under the Arthur Wishart Act and that the covenant was an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The court found that disclosure was not required because the franchisor was not sufficiently involved in the sale of the franchise.

The court also held that the restrictive covenant was unambiguous, reasonable in its 18-month and 30-mile scope, and protected the franchisor's legitimate business interests.

The application was granted and the respondents were ordered to cease operating the competing business.

Following a motion regarding the pre-certification production of medical records where the responding party (plaintiffs) was largely successful, the parties submitted costs submissions.

The plaintiffs sought $13,368 on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for costs in the cause or a maximum of $3,500.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to partial indemnity costs but reduced the claimed amount to comply with the Rules Committee's Grid for hourly rates and to account for excessive disbursement claims.

Recognizing the plaintiffs were largely but not entirely successful, the court fixed costs at $6,800 all-inclusive.

In a proposed pharmaceutical class proceeding alleging that anti-psychotic medications caused gynecomastia and that the defendants failed to warn of that risk, the moving defendants sought pre-certification production of broad medical and pharmacy records for five affiants.

The court held that pre-certification medical production must be limited to records bearing on certification issues and rejected any request that effectively sought entire medical files.

It confirmed production of records relating to prescriptions, ingestion, development of gynecomastia, related risk or warning discussions, and related surgeries.

The court refused on the present record to compel further diagnosis and treatment records aimed at individual causation or vague assertions about commonality and preferability, but left the issue open for renewal on cross-examination.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal dismissing his claim for a pension from his former employer.

The appellant argued that the pension plan's locking-in provision was clear and entitled him to a pension, or alternatively, that the ambiguous provision should be interpreted in his favour using the contra proferentem rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the ambiguous provision was reasonable and consistent with the legislative context, and that the Tribunal made no error in declining to apply the contra proferentem principle.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $23,000, inclusive of relevant disbursements and taxes.

The respondent obtained a New York judgment requiring the appellant to deliver a painting pursuant to a contract of sale.

The respondent successfully moved in Ontario to enforce the New York judgment, and was awarded substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's conduct in the New York litigation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the enforcement order, finding that the appellant had attorned to the New York court's jurisdiction by advancing substantive defences on the merits in that forum.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, holding that the scale of costs should be determined by the appellant's conduct in the Ontario proceeding, not the foreign litigation, and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs.

In a certified class proceeding concerning the partial wind-up of a supplemental retirement plan, the defendant insurer brought a refusals motion seeking production of income information, tax assessments, and projected retirement income from the representative plaintiff and certain subclass members.

The defendant argued the information was necessary for its actuarial expert to quantify potential damages.

The court held that the requested information related to individual damage quantification rather than the certified common issues, which were limited to liability and the methodology for calculating damages.

Because the trial judge had not yet determined the methodology for assessing damages or whether aggregate damages could be assessed, ordering production was premature.

The court also held that obtaining information from absent class members would require leave under s. 15 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The motion was dismissed.

The court dismissed both an application to set aside and an appeal from an accounting arbitration under an asset purchase agreement.

The moving party argued the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction and made manifest errors by quantifying deferred-revenue adjustments without independent expert evidence.

The court held the arbitration agreement and engagement letter authorized determination and quantification of disputed deferred-revenue items, and that the award reflected a factually grounded analysis of known costs and contingency risk allocations.

The high threshold for court intervention was not met.

A mining corporation sought an interlocutory injunction preventing major shareholders from voting their shares or soliciting proxies in an upcoming shareholder meeting, alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement and misuse of confidential information obtained during a site visit.

The dissident shareholders also sought declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the conduct of the shareholder meeting under the Business Corporations Act.

The court applied the RJR‑MacDonald test and held that while the corporation established a strong prima facie case that confidential information had been received, it demonstrated only a weak case that the information had been misused.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the proxy contest to proceed.

The court also declined to interfere in advance with the conduct of the shareholders’ meeting, emphasizing corporate autonomy absent demonstrated impropriety.