Monique J. Jilesen

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The first decision rescinded an earlier order cross-appointing a Conservation Review Board member to the panel.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