Monique J. Jilesen

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Deputy Judge's order for pre-trial inspection of an iPhone in a products liability case.

The appellant alleged the iPhone overheated and caused severe burns to his arm.

The central issue was whether Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court have jurisdiction to order pre-trial inspection of property.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that such jurisdiction exists under the Rules of the Small Claims Court where trial fairness and the interests of justice require it, and that the jurisdiction was properly exercised in this case.

Following an oppression action within CCAA proceedings, the court determined costs claims by Algoma and GIP.

The Essar Defendants agreed to pay $1.7 million in costs to the Monitor.

Algoma sought partial indemnity costs against the Essar Defendants, largely for extensive e-discovery disbursements.

The court rejected the argument that Algoma should be denied costs because it was aligned with the Monitor, finding Algoma's participation and document production were critical to the case.

The court awarded Algoma $1,138,809.19 in costs.

GIP's claim for costs against the Monitor was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the court found success between the Monitor and GIP was divided.

The applicants (Algoma) sought two declarations: (i) that amounts owing under a promissory note from Portco to Algoma had been set off against amounts Algoma owed to Portco under a Cargo Handling Agreement; and (ii) that Algoma's right to terminate related Port Agreements was not subject to Portco's payment of the GIP Loan, which was tied to the set-off amounts.

The court granted the first declaration, finding that equitable set-off applied given the close connection between the parties and transactions, and the manifest inequity of requiring Algoma to pay Portco while the parent company (EGFL) failed to pay the promissory note.

However, the court denied the second declaration, holding that it would contradict a prior oppression judgment and an assignment agreement which explicitly required the GIP Loan to be paid in full in cash before Algoma could terminate the Port Agreements.

This endorsement addresses a procedural dispute regarding the order of upcoming motions.

The Defendants brought a motion for contempt and other relief, alleging the Plaintiff violated a prior court order.

The Plaintiff, in turn, brought a motion to strike the Defendants' contempt motion, arguing it could not succeed and seeking to avoid being compelled to testify or submit an affidavit in defense of the contempt allegations.

The court agreed with the Plaintiff, ruling that the motion to strike should be heard first, as its success could significantly reduce the need for the Defendants' broader motion and protect the Plaintiff's right not to testify in contempt proceedings.

GIP Primus, L.P. and Brightwood Loan Services LLC ("GIP"), along with Portco, brought motions seeking orders for Essar Steel Algoma Inc. ("Algoma") to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement, including arrears, and for a priority charge in the alternative.

The motions were based on section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, arguing that Portco provided critical services or licensed property.

The court dismissed the motions, reiterating previous findings that Portco did not provide services or a license, and that the arguments were previously decided.

The court also declined to grant a critical supplier charge under section 11.4 or the general discretion of section 11 of the CCAA, citing lack of application by the debtor, prior rulings, and potential breach of DIP loan terms and prejudice to other creditors.

The Holmes defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their fourth motion to set aside a Mareva injunction and ancillary orders.

The motion judge had dismissed the Mareva order challenge on grounds of waiver and res judicata.

The applicant argued for leave based on conflicting decisions and doubt regarding the order's correctness.

The court denied leave, finding no conflicting decision on principle and no serious debate about the order's correctness, emphasizing the unique circumstances and the history of repeated, unsuccessful motions.

Essar Capital Limited and USW Local 2251 brought motions within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

Essar Capital sought to re-open the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) and compel the disclosure of information to Essar Global for a potential bid.

Local 2251 sought court advice on engaging in discussions with Ontario Steel Investments Ltd. regarding potential transactions.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no basis to interfere with the established SISP, noting Essar Global's prior failure to demonstrate financial capability and the lack of a formal bid from Ontario Steel.

The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the court-ordered process and avoid delays detrimental to the restructuring.

The applicant, an Indigenous person, sought an urgent interim and interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcast and display of the Cleveland Indians' team name and 'Chief Wahoo' logo during the American League Championship Series in Toronto, pending human rights complaints.

The court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the name and logo constituted discrimination in the provision of a service.

However, the court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting the delay in bringing the application, and found the balance of convenience favoured the respondents due to the material prejudice of last-minute broadcast and uniform changes.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of a class action settlement, legal fees for class counsel, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff in a misclassification overtime class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. The defendant agreed to pay $12 million for class member compensation and $500,000 for administration costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness established by comparable U.S. settlements.

A 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff were also approved.

The plaintiff, a resident of Switzerland with no assets in Ontario, sought court approval for a third-party Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) to pursue a complex commercial action against the defendants.

The defendants opposed the LFA, arguing it could allow the funder to recover more than 50 percent of the proceeds, and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The court found that while third-party funding is not per se objectionable in commercial litigation, the specific terms of this LFA were unfair to the plaintiff and constituted champerty and maintenance.

The motion to approve the LFA was dismissed without prejudice, and the cross-motion for security for costs was deferred.

Following certification of a class proceeding alleging unpaid overtime by investment advisors, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought $575,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendant argued the award should not exceed $315,000.

The court outlined a structured methodology for certification-motion costs awards emphasizing transparency, historical averages, proportionality, and the Rule 57.01(1) factors.

After reducing the claim for excess fees and disbursements and considering historical cost award data and comparable cases, the court fixed costs at $290,000 all-inclusive payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.