Patrick Corney

In a securities misrepresentation class action, the defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' reply expert report, delivered by Andrew M. Mintzer, in its entirety.

The report, initially intended to address causation, expanded to cover liability, contravening the agreed timetable and the rule against case-splitting.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the report but allowing the plaintiffs leave to file a new affidavit from Mr. Mintzer strictly confined to the issue of causation, as originally agreed.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to timetables and the rule against case-splitting, particularly in leave motions under the Ontario Securities Act, which serve a gatekeeper function.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The unsuccessful appellants (Essar entities and GIP entities) were ordered to pay costs to the successful respondents (the Monitor and Algoma Steel).

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs but disagreed on whether liability should be several or joint and several.

The court awarded costs on a several basis, allocating 25% to GIP and 75% to Essar, finding that GIP had a more limited role with different issues and less oral argument time than Essar.

A CCAA monitor brought an oppression action under the Canada Business Corporations Act against the parent company (Essar Global) and related entities, alleging that a port transaction transferring critical assets to an Essar-controlled entity was oppressive to Algoma's stakeholders (trade creditors, employees, pensioners, and retirees).

The trial judge found the monitor had standing as a complainant, the action was properly brought as an oppression remedy rather than a derivative action, and the port transaction and its change of control provision were oppressive.

The court granted a remedy modifying the transaction to remove the change of control veto and provide Algoma with termination rights after GIP's loan was repaid.

The appellants appealed on multiple grounds, including standing, characterization of the claim, reasonable expectations analysis, and the appropriateness of the remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment in all respects.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties had been working on a conceptual site model and requested more time to finalize it.

The Director consented to the request.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until December 28, 2017.

Following an oppression action within CCAA proceedings, the court determined costs claims by Algoma and GIP.

The Essar Defendants agreed to pay $1.7 million in costs to the Monitor.

Algoma sought partial indemnity costs against the Essar Defendants, largely for extensive e-discovery disbursements.

The court rejected the argument that Algoma should be denied costs because it was aligned with the Monitor, finding Algoma's participation and document production were critical to the case.

The court awarded Algoma $1,138,809.19 in costs.

GIP's claim for costs against the Monitor was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the court found success between the Monitor and GIP was divided.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties jointly requested a stay of certain portions of the order to allow time for expert meetings and potential resolution.

The Tribunal found no statutory bar to the stay and granted it on consent until December 31, 2016.

The appellant brought an urgent motion to stay physical work on a renewable energy project pending its appeal of an Environmental Review Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had dismissed a similar motion, with reasons to follow.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that without the Tribunal's reasons, it could not assess whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm from the limited vegetation clearing proposed, and noted the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants, former franchisees of a Baton Rouge restaurant, brought an application seeking declarations that a non-competition clause in their franchise agreement was void and unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade or for ambiguity.

They also sought a declaration that their proposed new restaurant menu did not violate the clause, and claimed damages for breach of the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 5-year, 10-kilometre restrictive covenant to be reasonable and unambiguous given its narrow scope, which only prohibited selling products using the franchisor's recipes.

The court declined to rule on the proposed menu without evidence of the actual recipes and found no evidence of bad faith by the franchisor.