Nicole Rozario

This proposed class action, alleging human rights abuses in chocolate manufacturing, was commenced in Ontario.

The plaintiff also initiated a similar lawsuit in British Columbia.

The defendant, Hershey Canada Inc., brought a motion for an anti-suit injunction to stay the B.C. action.

Concurrently, the plaintiff sought the court's permission under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act to discontinue the Ontario action, citing funding difficulties and B.C.'s no-costs jurisdiction.

The court, acting as case management judge, determined that both the anti-suit injunction motion and the discontinuance motion should be heard on the same day to address the issue of where the class action should proceed.

The decision outlines the scheduling for these motions, with the anti-suit injunction to be heard first.

The appellant, Nissa Corporation, inherited a solar power generation lease when it purchased two properties in Napanee from the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The respondent tenant sought declarations that the lease was valid and binding, and that it had the right to connect to the electrical utility system via a transformer located on an adjacent property (60A) and to install inverters in the electrical room of the leased building (61A).

The application judge granted both declarations.

On appeal, the court considered two issues: (1) whether the tenant had the right to connect to the transformer at the adjacent property, and (2) whether the tenant could install inverters inside the building rather than on the roof.

The court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the lease did not extend to the adjacent property but that the tenant could install inverters inside the building.

The individual defendants, former directors and officers of Old Noranco, brought a motion seeking advancement of legal expenses from the plaintiff (successor to Old Noranco and the purchaser) to defend against claims of misrepresentation in financial statements and a crossclaim by BDO Canada LLP.

The court determined that the claims, despite being framed against them as shareholders, implicated their fiduciary capacities, thus triggering indemnification rights.

The plaintiff failed to establish a "strong prima facie" case of bad faith against one defendant, Kelly Clinton, which would have disentitled him to funding.

The court also ruled that the existence of third-party funding did not preclude the individual defendants from recovering their legal expenses.

The motion for advancement of legal expenses was granted.

The applicant sought a ruling on the interpretation of a commercial lease concerning a solar energy project.

Specifically, the applicant requested declarations that the lease permitted the installation of inverters in the building's electrical room (not just on the roof) and allowed connection to the local utility system via a transformer located on a neighbouring property also owned by the respondent.

The respondent argued the lease restricted inverter placement to the roof and did not grant rights over the adjacent property.

The court, applying principles of contractual interpretation, found in favour of the applicant on both substantive issues, holding that the lease's terms, read holistically and in context of surrounding circumstances, permitted the current setup.