Peter C. Wardle

Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (BTC) sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx (MTX) from terminating a $770 million contract for light rail vehicles (LRVs) due to alleged material default, pending the completion of a mandatory dispute resolution process.

BTC also sought to remove the Engineer, Jeffrey Rankin, for alleged partiality.

The court found that the contract's dispute resolution process applied to MTX's right to terminate for material default.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court determined there was a serious issue to be tried, BTC would suffer irreparable harm (loss of reputation, future business, supply chain disruption, and employee expertise), and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, prohibiting MTX from terminating the contract until the Dispute Review Board (DRB) ruled on the default, and ordered the injunction to be nunc pro tunc to stay cure periods.

The issue of the Engineer's impartiality was referred to the DRB.

King, a lawyer, sued his former firm Gowling and partner O'Toole for indemnity and negligent advice related to an Italian judgment against him.

The court dismissed King's claim for indemnity against Gowling, finding the underlying causes of action predated his time at the firm.

King's claim against O'Toole for negligent advice regarding reporting to LawPro was dismissed due to the expiry of the limitation period.

However, King's claim against O'Toole for negligent advice not to attorn to the Italian courts was allowed to proceed to trial, as the court found a triable issue regarding when the loss for that specific advice was discovered for limitation purposes.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of a property in Iran.

The defendant argued that payment was conditional on clearing a cloud on title and, alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The court found no evidence of the alleged condition and held that the limitation period was extended under s. 11 of the Limitations Act because the parties had engaged a third party (the Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly) to assist in resolving the dispute.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the balance owing, converted to Canadian dollars on specific dates.

The appellant purchased a commercial property that was contaminated by hydrocarbons that had migrated from an adjacent former gas station property.

The respondents moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the contamination more than two years before commencing the action.

The motion judge granted the motion, finding that the appellant had knowledge of the claim by March 9, 2012, or alternatively by March 30, 2012.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by equating the appellant's suspicion of contamination with actual knowledge of contamination, and by failing to consider the relevant circumstances of the multi-property transaction and the waiver of conditions.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action for indemnity under a share purchase agreement.

The action was based on alleged breaches of a tax representation and warranty.

The defendants argued the action was statute-barred and that the plaintiff's claim for "loss of use of funds" was limited by contract.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the action was statute-barred because the six-year limitation period began when the plaintiff knew the material facts of the breach and the resulting "claim" (Revenue Canada's reassessment), not upon a demand for indemnity or its refusal.

The court also dismissed the claim for loss of use of funds beyond the contractually agreed prime rate.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration of oppression and the appointment of an inspector under ss. 161 and 248 of the OBCA to investigate the defendants' companies involved in two condominium development projects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing under s. 161 as they were not beneficial shareholders, and failed to establish a prima facie case of oppression under s. 248.

The court also held that appointing an inspector was inappropriate as the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits, and the plaintiffs already had access to extensive financial information.

This costs endorsement followed an appeal by the defendants regarding a Master's decision on production of documentation for damage claims.

The appeal was partially successful in obtaining some documentation but failed on the principal issue of 'flow-through costs.' The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing their settlement offer would have avoided costs.

The court found Rule 49.10(2) inapplicable to appeals but considered the plaintiffs' offer and the defendants' own costs submissions.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $33,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding them fair and reasonable given the case's complexity, importance, and the parties' conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant law firm, Aylesworth LLP, was vicariously liable for the alleged professional negligence of a solicitor, Welsh.

Welsh had a 'counsel' relationship with Aylesworth but operated his own independent practice in Oakville, through which he provided legal services to the plaintiffs regarding a fraudulent investment scheme.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court held that Aylesworth was not vicariously liable because it did not materially enhance the risk of wrongdoing, had no knowledge or control over Welsh's independent files, and did not hold Welsh out as its agent to the plaintiffs.

The moving defendants sought leave to appeal orders refusing to compel production of agreements between the plaintiffs and their content providers in satellite signal piracy litigation.

The defendants argued that documents showing programming acquisition costs were relevant to calculating the plaintiffs’ lost profit damages.

The court applied the tests under r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found no conflict with the cited Quebec decision and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s ruling.

Evidence indicated that any recovered amounts would flow through to content providers or SOCAN, making the requested documents irrelevant to the damages calculation.

The issues were fact‑specific and not of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff, a former member of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, sued the College, its external counsel, the complainant, and witnesses for damages arising from the revocation of her registration following a disciplinary hearing.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding that the College and its counsel were protected by statutory immunity under the Social Work and Social Services Work Act, 1998, and that the complainant and witnesses were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The court also struck claims relying on evidence rendered inadmissible by statute and claims lacking sufficient material facts, granting leave to amend only certain specific claims.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that Air Canada improperly collected U.S. transportation taxes on tickets purchased in Canada and between Canada and the U.S., thereby giving extra-territorial effect to U.S. tax laws.

The motion judge found the Ontario court had jurisdiction but stayed the claims of passengers who paid in the U.S. on the basis of forum non conveniens.

On appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while Ontario courts have jurisdiction to determine if a foreign law is being enforced extra-territorially, the entire action should be stayed on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The principle of comity requires that the interpretation of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code be undertaken by U.S. authorities first.

Following the dismissal of a motion challenging Ontario’s jurisdiction simpliciter and asserting forum non conveniens, the successful party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis of approximately $38,000.

The court considered the reasonableness of the claimed preparation time and whether costs should include fees for both senior and junior counsel.

While acknowledging the value of mentoring junior counsel, the court held that the circumstances did not justify indemnifying the successful party for two counsel on the motion.

After assessing the complexity and importance of the motion and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, the court reduced the requested amount.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $30,000 all inclusive.

The appellant purchaser appealed the dismissal of her application for the return of a $100,000 deposit after a real estate transaction failed to close.

The purchaser had discovered an open building permit, but the application judge found this requisition could be satisfied by title insurance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the vendors were ready to close and the purchaser's failure to respond to the vendor's proposal regarding title insurance caused the transaction to fail.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action alleging that the defendant airline improperly charged United States transportation taxes on ticket purchases.

The defendant moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The court held that Ontario had presence‑based jurisdiction because the defendant carried on business in Ontario and there was a real and substantial connection to the dispute.

The revenue rule did not bar adjudication because the action did not seek to enforce foreign tax laws but rather challenged the defendant’s collection of charges from customers.

The motion was dismissed with respect to claims relating to tickets paid for in Canada but granted in relation to tickets paid for in the United States, which were stayed as U.S. courts were the clearly more appropriate forum.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of loyalty, alleging the lawyers facilitated a Ponzi scheme and failed to disclose the plaintiffs' interests during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation while representing other clients.

The defendant lawyers moved to strike portions of the statement of claim, arguing their statements and omissions before the OSC were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it is not plain and obvious that absolute privilege immunizes a lawyer from a client's claim for breach of loyalty based on statements made while representing different clients in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

The applicant, a unitholder in an income fund, sought an order requiring the fund's trustees to call a special meeting of unitholders to vote on a proposed transaction involving the restructuring of preference shares and secured notes.

The court found that the proposed transaction was objectively 'materially adverse' to the unitholders because it postponed payments on the secured notes.

Consequently, under the Declaration of Trust, the trustees lacked the authority to vote the fund's common shares in favour of the transaction without unitholder approval.

The court ordered the special meeting of the company to be adjourned pending a unitholder vote.

The appellant appealed an order upholding a previous order that set aside its statement of defence and dismissed its counterclaim.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, characterizing the motion as a collateral attack, and failing to properly weigh the appellant's self-represented status and the short duration of delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge comprehensively balanced the interests of the parties and correctly concluded the appellant had wholly failed to comply with court orders without reasonable explanation.

In a complex Commercial List case management proceeding involving multiple condominium corporations, lenders, and other parties arising from alleged fraud related to loans arranged for condominium corporations, the court addressed whether a previously scheduled separate hearing of a threshold issue should proceed.

The threshold issue concerned whether certain loans were enforceable against the condominium corporations.

Several parties withdrew their earlier consent to bifurcate the proceedings under Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that, absent unanimous consent, it lacked jurisdiction to compel a separate hearing of the threshold issue and therefore cancelled the proposed hearing.

The court instead directed that the actions proceed expeditiously to a consolidated trial with a structured discovery process and encouraged mediation.

The Peel Regional Police received a complaint regarding historical sexual assaults allegedly committed by a former police officer in 1981 or 1982.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) commenced an investigation, and the police force challenged the SIU's jurisdiction on the basis that the officers had retired and the alleged offences occurred prior to the SIU's creation in 1990.

The application judge dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that section 113(5) of the Police Services Act grants the SIU jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal offences committed by persons who were serving police officers at the time of the conduct, regardless of their current employment status.

The Court also held that the provision is procedural in nature and therefore applies retrospectively to offences committed before 1990.