Natalie Cammarasana

Following a trial on damages in a commercial dispute involving mall tenancy losses, the court issued supplementary reasons correcting calculation errors in the damages previously awarded.

The correction increased the total damages to $580,600.63 after identifying an arithmetic mistake relating to losses associated with inducing a replacement anchor tenant.

The parties jointly agreed to prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act at a rate of 2.8%, resulting in prejudgment interest of $352,973.37 to January 15, 2026.

The plaintiffs’ remaining claims for damages were dismissed.

Costs were left to be determined following written submissions.

The plaintiff mall owners sought over $12 million in consequential damages following the defendant anchor tenant's early closure in breach of its lease.

The trial was bifurcated, with liability previously determined in the plaintiffs' favour.

The court assessed various heads of damages, applying the test for remoteness from Hadley v. Baxendale.

The court awarded $570,216.02, finding that certain tenant inducements and lost rent from specific departing tenants were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the sudden breach.

However, the court dismissed the majority of the claims, concluding that mall renovations were planned maintenance, several tenant failures were unrelated to the breach, and the claim for lost prospective tenants was speculative.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

The court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.

FSD Pharma Inc. applied to validate the cancellation of Class B shares issued to its former CEO, Raza Bokhari, arguing they were issued for future consideration contrary to s. 23 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

Bokhari contended the shares were valid or that the issue should be pursued under s. 130 OBCA, and that FSD was estopped from raising the issue.

The court found that shares issued for future consideration are not a nullity but their status depends on circumstances.

Applying a flexible approach, the court allowed Bokhari to retain shares proportionate to his actual employment days in 2021 (208/365ths) and permitted FSD to cancel the remainder.

The court also rejected the cause of action estoppel argument, noting the prior hearing was limited in scope.

Costs were not awarded to either party due to divided success and tactical efforts by the respondent.

The appellant, TELUS Communications Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision regarding the constitutional validity of the Wireless Services Agreement Act 2013 (WSAA) and a class action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the WSAA was within provincial legislative jurisdiction and was not rendered inoperative by paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's request to stay the class action for CRTC determination, confirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction.