Monique J. Jilesen

The plaintiff, a former investment advisor, sought to certify a class action against his former employer for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued that investment advisors fall within the managerial or greater benefit exemptions.

The court found that the plaintiff met all five prerequisites for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including that the applicability of the exemptions could be determined as common issues.

The motion for certification was granted.

The appellant, Barclays Bank PLC, appealed a trial judgment finding its Notice of Early Termination of a complex asset-backed commercial paper transaction invalid and the respondent Devonshire Trust's Notice of Early Termination valid.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that Barclays' notice was invalid due to its fraudulent misrepresentation, bad faith, and the principle that a party cannot benefit from its own wrong, as Barclays' failure to make liquidity payments contributed to Devonshire's insolvency.

The Court also upheld the validity of Devonshire's notice.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the calculation of Barclays' Settlement Amount, substituting a figure of $264 million for the trial judge's $12,000 valuation, subject to deductions for mitigation.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.

Following a merits decision finding that Coventree Inc. and its senior officers, Geoffrey Cornish and Dean Tai, failed to disclose material changes in breach of the Securities Act, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission emphasized the fundamental importance of timely disclosure to the integrity of capital markets.

While noting mitigating factors such as the respondents' lack of intent to mislead and their cooperation with Staff, the Commission imposed significant administrative penalties to achieve specific and general deterrence.

Coventree was ordered to pay a $1 million penalty and $250,000 in costs, while Cornish and Tai were each ordered to pay a $500,000 penalty and were prohibited from acting as directors or officers of a reporting issuer for one year.

The plaintiffs, former federal public servants, sued the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) for negligent misrepresentation after resigning to join a private company, Loba, and transferring their pensions to the Loba Plan, which was later revoked by the CRA.

The trial judge found the AGC liable for failing to disclose known risks about the Loba Plan and apportioned liability 80% to the AGC and 20% to the Loba Parties (third parties).

The AGC appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of duty of care, misrepresentation, and causation against the AGC.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding apportionment, finding the trial judge erred in her fiduciary analysis of the Loba Parties.

The Court adjusted the apportionment of liability to 60% for the AGC and 40% for the Loba Parties.

A separate appeal by one plaintiff regarding the calculation of his damages was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge in a bankruptcy and insolvency proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to consider arguments that were not placed before the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Town of Oakville sought leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding heritage buildings.

The first decision rescinded an earlier order cross-appointing a Conservation Review Board member to the panel.

The court granted leave to appeal this decision, finding reason to doubt its correctness given the statutory provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The second decision directed the Town to permit the relocation of two heritage buildings.

The court denied leave to appeal this decision, finding the Board committed no error of law in its assessment of conservation principles.

The appellants, former senior officers and directors of Hollinger Inc., appealed an order compelling them to submit to questioning by an Inspector appointed under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

They argued that being compelled to answer questions in Canada would violate their Charter rights against self-incrimination, as their answers could be used against them in ongoing criminal proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants were not entitled to a constitutional exemption because the Canadian inquiry was fact-finding rather than prosecutorial.

The Court also declined to stay the order, noting that the application judge had established a procedure to rule on specific questions and craft protective mechanisms on a case-by-case basis.

The appellants appealed an order allowing the plaintiffs to substitute Dr. Petrasek for a 'John Doe' defendant under Rule 26.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim did not point the 'litigating finger' at Dr. Petrasek, as there was no evidence he was responsible for the positioning of the plaintiff for surgery.

The motion to substitute was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal with costs, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge.

Counsel were permitted to file written submissions on the amount of costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to set aside a judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to bring its motion forthwith after the judgment came to its attention, noting the obligation was triggered almost a year before the motion was made.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant insurer sought to add Livent Inc. and several of its directors as defendants by counterclaim in an action brought by outside directors to enforce a Directors and Officers Liability policy.

The insurer also sought to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings against Livent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, adding Livent as a party because the insurer was entitled to seek a declaration regarding the policy's validity against the policyholder.

However, the court refused to add the additional directors, finding it would unnecessarily complicate the discrete legal issue of coverage for the innocent outside directors.

The CCAA stay was lifted to the extent necessary to give effect to the order.