Nadia Charlotte Imelda Campion

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the valuation of the applicant's shares in a family holding company.

The applicant sought to have an arbitrator appointed or the issues heard in court, alleging oppression and breach of a unanimous shareholders' agreement regarding a 2008 transaction.

The respondents sought the appointment of a valuator, arguing the valuation date was fixed in 2007.

The court held that a valuator is not qualified to deal with oppression or breach of contract claims, and because a non-party to the shareholders' agreement was involved, arbitration was unavailable.

The court ordered that the oppression and breach of contract claims be dealt with by the court before any valuator is appointed.

The moving party brought a consent motion seeking certification of a securities class proceeding and leave to advance a secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The claim arose after the issuer disclosed a prolonged fraud in a related loan business that required restatement of financial results.

The proposed class consisted of investors who acquired the issuer’s securities during a specified class period.

The court found that the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and that the statutory leave requirement under the Securities Act was met.

The court granted certification, granted leave to advance the statutory claim, and dismissed a parallel action against additional defendants pursuant to the parties’ procedural agreement.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order certifying a class proceeding in part.

The motion judge had declined to certify claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy, and had restricted the class to Canadian purchasers.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of the civil conspiracy claim, finding conflicting decisions and good reason to doubt the correctness of requiring the plaintiff to plead special damages at the certification stage.

Leave to appeal was denied for the misrepresentation claims and the class definition.

The appellant proceeded by way of power of sale but the Notice of Sale did not reference an obligation under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The respondent tendered the full amount of the debt specified in the Notice of Sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the appellant was bound to deliver the discharge upon tender of the specified amount, as finding otherwise would impermissibly clog the equity of redemption.

The appellant purchased 88 lots from the respondent developer.

The parties disputed who was responsible for paying certain development charges to the municipality under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The motion judge found the respondent was not required to pay charges due after the registration of the Plan of Subdivision, interpreting 'prerequisite' temporally.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that interpreting the contract as a whole required 'prerequisite' to mean an obligation to pay, giving effect to a clause permitting payment after registration.

The appellants appealed the quantum of damages awarded at trial for the respondent's breach of a restrictive covenant and fiduciary duty.

The trial judge had limited damages to the two-year period of the covenant, less a 25% contingency for clients who would have left anyway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants elected to claim recovery of loss rather than disgorgement, and the trial judge's factual assessment of that loss was reasonable.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding liability was also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing their request for a stay of the Ontario proceedings.

The motions judge had concluded that Ontario, not New Brunswick, was the appropriate forum based on the contract's attornment clause and a forum non conveniens analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order.

The appellant, a senior labour relations employee for the City of Hamilton, appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge found that the appellant engaged in personal and sexual harassment of a colleague, as well as retaliation, conflicts of interest, abuse of authority, and insubordination.

The Court of Appeal applied the contextual approach from McKinley v. BC Tel and upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the cumulative effect of the appellant's misconduct, particularly given his senior role and responsibility for workplace policies, justified his termination without notice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.