Monique J. Jilesen

The defendants brought a motion seeking a partial sealing order in respect of designated confidential information they wished to rely upon for a jurisdiction motion.

The confidential information related to the defendants' corporate organization and structure, web crawling and fetching processes, and model training and inference processes.

The court applied the three-part test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan and Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) to determine whether to grant the sealing order.

The court found that disclosure of the confidential information posed a serious risk to the important public interest of fair competition in the artificial intelligence industry, that no reasonable alternative measures would prevent this risk, and that the benefits of the order outweighed its negative effects on the open court principle.

The partial sealing order was granted.

The applicants, a group of real estate development entities (Ashcroft Homes Group), sought to extend an initial Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stay of proceedings to facilitate a restructuring.

Secured creditors, representing 84% of the total secured debt, opposed the extension and instead moved for the appointment of interim receivers.

The court found the applicants' restructuring plan lacked substance, noted a significant loss of confidence in management due to past conduct and outdated property valuations, and determined that the collaborative receivership approach proposed by the majority of secured creditors was more appropriate.

The motion to extend the CCAA stay was dismissed, and the motions for the appointment of receivers were granted.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) appealed a lower court's interpretation of its standard-form "feed-in-tariff" (FIT 1) contracts with solar energy suppliers.

The dispute centered on whether suppliers breached contracts by "optimizing" their facilities (installing more efficient solar panels) without IESO's consent, specifically regarding changes to DC energy capacity and DC/AC ratio.

The application judge found that consent was only required for features outlined in the application or contract cover page, which did not include DC capacity or DC/AC ratio.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, dismissing IESO's appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's reasoning regarding contract interpretation or the impact of optimizations on metering plans.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision where solar energy suppliers (the "Suppliers") successfully argued that their "Optimizations" did not constitute "Contract Facility Amendments" under their Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) contracts with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

The Suppliers sought approximately $2 million in partial indemnity costs, while the IESO proposed around $817,000.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors, found the issues complex and high-stakes for both parties.

Despite the Suppliers' higher learning curve and efficient litigation, the court deemed their claimed hours disproportionate.

The court fixed the aggregate partial indemnity legal fees at $1 million, plus disbursements of $270,000 (less specific deductions), finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate given all circumstances.

The University of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to dismantle a protest encampment set up by students and others on Front Campus.

The protesters argued the encampment was a protected exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association, and assembly.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the University established a strong prima facie case of trespass and ejectment.

The court held that the protesters' appropriation of University property to the exclusion of others constituted irreparable harm.

The balance of convenience favoured the University, as the injunction only prohibited camping and erecting structures, while allowing the protesters to continue demonstrating elsewhere on campus.

In an alternative analysis, the court found that the Charter does not apply to the University's management of its property, and even if it did, the trespass notice was a justified limit under section 1.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) sought to prevent solar energy suppliers from increasing their DC capacity, arguing it constituted a 'Contract Facility Amendment' requiring IESO consent under Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) 1.3 and 1.5 contracts.

The suppliers argued that such 'Optimizations' did not require consent as they did not alter features explicitly outlined in the contract application or cover page, and did not exceed AC capacity limits.

The court found that the Optimizations were not Contract Facility Amendments requiring IESO notice and consent, as DC capacity was not an 'outlined' feature in the contracts.

The suppliers' applications for declarations were granted, and the IESO's counter-applications were dismissed.

The appellant, Juan Guillermo Gutierrez, appealed three orders from the Superior Court of Justice: a finding of civil contempt, a 30-day imprisonment sentence, and a full indemnity costs award of $563,485.00.

The contempt finding stemmed from his interference with a court-appointed receiver by signing a false declaration in Guatemala to initiate a criminal complaint against the receiver's representatives.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, affirming the lower court's jurisdiction based on a "real and substantial link" to Ontario, upholding the contempt finding due to intentional breach of the receivership order, confirming the 30-day sentence as fit given the egregious nature of the contempt and lack of remorse, and upholding the full indemnity costs award due to the seriousness of the conduct and the financial burden placed on the judgment creditor.

The Receiver sought costs of a contempt motion against the respondent on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent had been found in civil contempt for breaching an appointment order and sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment.

The court awarded costs on a full indemnity basis, finding the respondent's conduct egregious and highly disrespectful to the court and its appointed officer.

The quantum was fixed at $563,485, with a minor reduction for time spent on irrelevant facts.

The Receiver brought a contempt motion against the respondent for breaching an appointment order by interfering with the Receiver's exclusive authority and supporting a criminal complaint against the Receiver's representatives in Panama.

Having previously found the respondent in civil contempt, the court determined the appropriate penalty.

Finding that the respondent's conduct was a blatant and deliberate breach that undermined the court's authority, and that a fine would be insufficient for deterrence, the court ordered the respondent to be imprisoned for 30 days.

The appellants, Amber Baptiste and Every Girl Counts LLC, appealed two Superior Court orders: one recognizing a California judgment against them in favour of the respondent, Michael Goguen, and another allowing enforcement of that judgment by seizing funds in Alberta.

The appellants argued the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over funds outside the province.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Ontario court's in personam jurisdiction over the appellants and CIBC (whose head office is in Ontario), finding it irrelevant that funds were transferred to Alberta.

The court applied principles from *Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje*, emphasizing that requiring assets to be present in the jurisdiction at the time of enforcement is not conducive to fairness in a globalized world.

This endorsement concerns the continuation of a motion by the plaintiffs to extend a Mareva Injunction and a cross-motion by certain defendants to dissolve it.

Due to the recent service of voluminous motion material, the plaintiffs requested an adjournment to review the material and conduct cross-examinations.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the adjournment, extending the existing injunction.

All matters were adjourned to a later date for a virtual hearing.

The court also noted a separate forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, which is not intended to affect assets subject to civil judgment for class members.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions related to a Mareva injunction in a class proceeding concerning the 'Freedom Convoy' funds.

The court extended the Mareva injunction with modifications, adjourned motions to dissolve the injunction and amend the statement of claim, and granted a Toronto Dominion Bank interpleader motion to transfer funds to an escrow agent.

The decision also clarified the interplay between the civil Mareva injunction and criminal restraint orders, and addressed issues concerning cryptocurrency seized by police and funds held by a third-party fundraising platform, GiveSendGo LLC.

The court emphasized the importance of keeping separate proceedings distinct while managing related matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction previously granted against organizers and funders of the Freedom Convoy.

The injunction aimed to restrain the dissipation of assets for potential civil liability to Ottawa residents and businesses.

The court granted a temporary extension and modification of the injunction by consent, allowing certain funds to be transferred to an escrow agent, and adjourned the motion for a further hearing.

The decision emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding, separate from criminal processes.

This proposed class action sought an ex parte Mareva injunction to freeze assets, including cryptocurrency, of organizers and participants in the 'Freedom Convoy' protest in downtown Ottawa.

The plaintiffs, residents, businesses, and employees, alleged damages from private and public nuisance.

The court found an apparently strong case for tort liability and a serious risk of asset dissipation, particularly with funds purposely moved to avoid seizure.

The injunction was granted, freezing funds controlled by the defendants, and the requirement for an undertaking for damages was waived due to the public interest and class action nature of the case.

The court also approved an amendment to the statement of claim to expand plaintiff classes and add defendants.

The appellant, Stericycle ULC, appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration that it, rather than Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Limited, was the primary supplier for Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) under a public tendering process.

Stericycle argued that the application judge erred in contract interpretation, allowing impermissible bid repair, and failing to properly apply the duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the "Six Month Provision" or the contract start date.

The court also found no breach of the duty of good faith or honest performance by HealthPRO or PHSA, as their actions were consistent with the contract's purpose and Stericycle's reasonable expectations.

The applicants, Calo Holdings Ltd. and Imperial Precast Corp., sought an order equalizing shareholder accounts and other remedies against the respondent, 2347186 Ontario Inc., in the context of a joint venture to operate a precast business through two corporations (2057461 Ontario Inc. and Northern Precast Corp.).

The applicants claimed Imperial was owed over $800,000 for contributions and sought payment from 205 or, alternatively, from 234 based on oppressive conduct.

The court dismissed the application, finding no agreement for overall equalization between the shareholders outside of the specific shareholder agreements for each corporation.

The court also determined that 234 did not owe money to Calo or Imperial, and therefore, 234's refusal to pay did not constitute oppressive conduct under the Business Corporations Act.

Imperial was deemed an unsecured creditor of the respective corporations, not 234.

This application sought a determination of contractual rights regarding an early termination provision in pre-construction condominium agreements.

The applicants argued that a 'sole, absolute and unfettered discretion' proviso in a financing condition rendered the entire condition null and void under the Tarion Addendum, leading to a breach of contract claim.

The court found that the proviso did not form part of the early termination condition or, if it did, it was inconsistent with the Addendum's requirement for commercially reasonable steps and was therefore unenforceable.

The court interpreted the condition to require vendors to take all commercially reasonable steps to arrange satisfactory financing, upholding the validity of the termination condition and dismissing the application.

The applicants, a group of Essar Steel Algoma entities, brought a motion under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) and related relief.

GIP and PortCo objected to certain aspects of the APA and the orders sought.

The court approved the APA and the Sale Transaction, finding it to be in the best interests of Algoma and its stakeholders.

The approval was granted without prejudice to the rights of GIP and PortCo to raise further objections regarding the Approval and Vesting Order at a later date.

Several other motions, including those by GIP, PortCo, and Garden River First Nations, were adjourned.

The court also ordered certain cross-examination transcripts and exhibits to be sealed based on the principles from the Sierra Club of Canada case.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The unsuccessful appellants (Essar entities and GIP entities) were ordered to pay costs to the successful respondents (the Monitor and Algoma Steel).

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs but disagreed on whether liability should be several or joint and several.

The court awarded costs on a several basis, allocating 25% to GIP and 75% to Essar, finding that GIP had a more limited role with different issues and less oral argument time than Essar.

A CCAA monitor brought an oppression action under the Canada Business Corporations Act against the parent company (Essar Global) and related entities, alleging that a port transaction transferring critical assets to an Essar-controlled entity was oppressive to Algoma's stakeholders (trade creditors, employees, pensioners, and retirees).

The trial judge found the monitor had standing as a complainant, the action was properly brought as an oppression remedy rather than a derivative action, and the port transaction and its change of control provision were oppressive.

The court granted a remedy modifying the transaction to remove the change of control veto and provide Algoma with termination rights after GIP's loan was repaid.

The appellants appealed on multiple grounds, including standing, characterization of the claim, reasonable expectations analysis, and the appropriateness of the remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment in all respects.