Murray John Klippenstein

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its response to correct typing errors, provide further detail regarding timeliness and communication, and add to its list of relevant documents.

The applicant consented on the condition that the respondents deliver their lists of arguably relevant documents and that the applicant be permitted to file an amended reply.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the amendments would not change the nature of the inquiry and that the conditions addressed any potential prejudice to the applicant.

The appellants, residents of Ecuador, brought negligence actions against Copper Mesa Mining Corporation, its directors, and the TSX defendants for alleged human rights abuses committed by security forces in connection with a mining project in Ecuador.

The appellants claimed the TSX defendants owed a duty of care not to list Copper Mesa's shares, and the directors owed a duty to avoid acts contributing to the abuses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b), finding that the pleadings failed to establish the requisite foreseeability and proximity under the Cooper-Anns test to ground a novel duty of care.

The appellants, a non-profit housing co-operative and a co-operative housing federation, appealed an order approving a receivership sale of the co-operative's assets to a municipality-controlled entity.

The appellants argued that the motion judge failed to properly consider the special nature of co-operative housing and the rights of its members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard Soundair principles for approving a receiver's sale apply, and that the motion judge correctly balanced the special factors of social housing against the financial realities and statutory framework.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order transferring three related actions to the Commercial List.

The plaintiffs argued that the actions, which alleged negligence against the defendants for their involvement in mining operations in Ecuador, were not commercial in nature.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to transfer the actions, as the pleadings relied on commercial statutes and raised issues of corporate governance.

The court also found that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Region's decision to consent to the sale of a non-profit housing co-operative to the Region's social housing arm.

The Co-op was in receivership due to financial difficulties and need for capital repairs.

The Region consented to the sale without notifying the Co-op's board or members.

The Divisional Court held that the Region's decision was judicially reviewable and that the Region breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

However, given the urgent need for repairs, the court declined to quash the consent and deferred the matter to the Commercial List where the sale motion was pending.

Following the refusal of leave to appeal, the responding party sought costs of $10,746.01 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued for no costs, claiming the matter involved public importance, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs of $7,385.14.

The court found costs were warranted but not on a substantial indemnity scale.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court awarded the responding party costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a $10,000 costs award made against it by the Ontario Municipal Board for procedural non-compliance.

The moving party argued the Board erred by allowing an oral request for costs instead of a written one as required by the former Rule 100.

The Divisional Court extended the time to seek leave but dismissed the application, noting that the rule had since been amended to permit oral submissions, rendering the issue moot and not of public importance.

The appellants appealed a decision upholding a municipal by-law that restricted the height of their natural garden planted on city property.

The application judge found that any infringement of the appellants' freedom of conscience, religion, or expression was justified under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit for public safety and visibility on roadways.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge's analysis, concluding that the by-law's limitation on vegetation was tied to safety hazards and was not overly vague or unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The Governing Council of the University of Toronto appealed a Superior Court decision that quashed the Chief Returning Officer's rejection of the respondent's nomination for a student position on the Governing Council.

The lower court found a conflict between the Election Guidelines, which required a candidate to be a member of their constituency throughout the election period, and the University of Toronto Act, which stated every student is eligible for election.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no conflict.

The Court held that 'eligible' does not mean 'entitled,' and the guideline was a valid procedural rule establishing a connection with a constituency.

The appellant province appealed a judgment concerning the designation of First Nations bands as delivery agents under the Ontario Works Act.

The Court of Appeal resolved the dispute narrowly by declaring that, in light of the 1965 Welfare Agreement, the minister's powers under s. 38 had to be exercised with the consent of the band.

The court set aside the judgment below, established a process by which bands could indicate non-consent and obtain immediate revocation of designation, and left existing designations temporarily in place pending that choice.

The court expressly declined to determine the broader constitutional issues addressed below.