Nadav Yam Amar

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order upholding a registrar's dismissal of his action for delay.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in assessing the explanation for the delay, inadvertence, and prejudice, and failed to prioritize determining claims on their merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the correct legal principles and made no palpable and overriding factual errors.

The motion judge properly found the appellant failed to adequately explain the delay, failed to show the delay was due to inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, noting actual prejudice due to the loss of key evidence.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

The Township of Clearview appealed a motion decision that largely dismissed its anti-SLAPP application against an action for defamation, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by the respondents.

The action stemmed from the Township posting resident letters on its website that contained negative comments about the respondents' farming practices and proposed micro-brewery.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the defamation claim, finding that the motion judge erred in his analysis of the qualified privilege and indemnity defences, which had a real prospect of success.

The negligence claim dismissal was not appealed.

The breach of fiduciary duty claim dismissal was upheld.