Nigel Campbell

The appellants appealed decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they breached securities laws and acted contrary to the public interest.

The Commission found that the appellant Rowan failed to file insider reports, traded during blackout periods, and failed to disclose his control over certain trust accounts.

The Commission also found that the other appellants failed to adequately supervise Rowan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Commission's interpretation of 'control or direction' under the Securities Act, its public interest findings, or its imposition of administrative monetary penalties.

The appellant corporation appealed an order requiring it to indemnify a former director for costs and fines incurred in Ontario Securities Commission proceedings.

The director had admitted to the OSC that he failed to disclose a material change regarding a disputed contract, but maintained he honestly and reasonably believed the contract was not in jeopardy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 124(3) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, the corporation bears the onus of proving the director did not act honestly and in good faith, or lacked reasonable grounds to believe his conduct was lawful.

The application judge made no error in finding the corporation failed to meet this burden.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal in a copyright infringement action, the Court of Appeal received written submissions to fix the respondents' costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court declined to refer the costs for assessment, finding it was better positioned to fix them given its knowledge of the complex appeal.

The court applied the new costs rules and Tariff A grid, rejecting the respondents' request to apply the former solicitor and client scale.

After adjusting hourly rates, reducing preparation hours, and setting off the appellant's costs for interlocutory proceedings, the court fixed the respondents' costs at $536,464.42.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its copyright infringement action and the assessment of damages awarded to the respondents under an undertaking given for an interlocutory injunction.

The appellant alleged the respondents' computer program infringed its copyright.

The trial judge found no copying of protectable expression, noting that similarities were dictated by functional considerations or were not protectable by copyright.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on copyright infringement, including the application of the idea/expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine.

The Court also upheld the damages award of over $6.8 million for losses caused by the interlocutory injunction, finding the damages were reasonably foreseeable and caused by the injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The union appealed from a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitrator's ruling that he had jurisdiction to determine an employee's entitlement to long-term disability benefits as against an insurer.

The collective agreement required the employer only to maintain the group insurance policy in force and pay premiums, obligations the employer had admittedly fulfilled, and the policy was not incorporated into the collective agreement.

Applying correctness review and the essential character analysis under labour arbitration jurisprudence, the court held the dispute was between the employee and the insurer under the insurance policy, not a dispute arising from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement.

The arbitrator therefore lacked jurisdiction, and also lacked authority to add the insurer to the arbitration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Board of Inquiry, which held that it had jurisdiction to continue hearing a human rights complaint after the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew its carriage of the proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that under the Human Rights Code, a Board of Inquiry may not proceed in the absence of the Commission.

The Court held that the Commission cannot delegate carriage of the complaint to the complainant, and that the public interest representation of the Commission is required for the hearing to proceed.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision declaring provisions of the Act respecting municipal taxation unconstitutional.

The impugned provisions created a new system of school financing based on government grants, making taxation a complementary method subject to a referendum requirement for amounts exceeding a certain limit.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions prejudicially affected the rights and privileges respecting denominational schools guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Specifically, the legislation failed to ensure proportional distribution of grants and subjected the taxing power of denominational school boards to the approval of electors outside their districts.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisions were declared ultra vires.