Peter J. Osborne

In the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University, the applicant sought an order regarding a Compensation Claims Process.

On consent, the court deferred relief related to Third Party RHBP Claims to a subsequent hearing, ordering that the deadlines and procedures in the Compensation Claims Process Order would not apply to those claims at this time.

The remaining unopposed relief was granted.

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings seeking the appointment of a Chief Redevelopment Officer, an increase in the fee cap for the Board of Governors' independent counsel, and approval of a claims process.

The court approved the appointment of the CRO and the fee increase.

Regarding the claims process, TD Bank proposed amendments to require consultation on claims over $5 million.

Balancing the need for efficiency with creditor involvement, the court modified the claims process to establish an 'Inspector Group' to authorize the compromise of material claims, drawing on principles from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant, Laurentian University, brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings to extend the stay of proceedings, approve an amendment to its DIP facility increasing the available funds by $10 million, and approve settlement agreements with its faculty association, staff union, and Huntington University.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, making significant progress in its restructuring.

Despite opposition from Thorneloe University and the University of Sudbury regarding the DIP amendment, the court approved the requested relief, finding the DIP conditions reasonable and the extension necessary for the applicant's continued operations and restructuring efforts.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce its contractual rights following a $5 million default on bearer bonds issued for a renewable energy project in Poland.

The plaintiff sought to terminate the Administration Agreement and assume the role of Administrator of the Trust.

The court found that final relief could not be granted on an interlocutory motion due to credibility issues requiring a trial.

However, the court granted a temporary mandatory injunction allowing the plaintiff to assume the Administrator's duties pending trial, finding a strong prima facie case of default, irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to compel answers and document production regarding communications between the respondent and its counsel.

The appellant alleged the respondent used false evidence to procure her prosecution by IIROC, arguing the fraud/crime exception to solicitor-client privilege applied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the communications were made to facilitate a crime or civil wrong, as the false information had no bearing on the regulatory investigation.

This is a case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an appeal from an interlocutory order.

The endorsement sets out the schedule for the appeal hearing, which will be conducted as a video conference, and details requirements for electronic document submission, including formatting, hyperlinking authorities, and preparing compendiums.

It also reminds counsel to address costs in advance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $5.47 million 'ice breaker' settlement with the Deutsche Bank defendants in two proposed class actions alleging price-fixing in the international gold and silver markets.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable despite the $1 billion damages claim, because the settlement amount was consistent with parallel U.S. settlements and the non-monetary cooperation from Deutsche Bank was of inestimable value.

The court also approved class counsel's request for an interim fee award of a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements, noting that such awards promote early settlement and lessen the financial burden on class counsel in complex conspiracy cases.

The appellants purchased railway land in Niagara Falls from Canadian National Railway Company (CN) in 2008, with CN taking back a mortgage.

The appellants defaulted and CN sued.

The appellants brought a third-party action against their solicitors (McMillan LLP, Philip Thompson, and Marssa Giahi) for negligence, claiming they failed to properly advise about a Director's order under the Environmental Protection Act registered on title.

The respondents obtained summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in applying Rule 20 principles and that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the duty of care, knowledge of the Director's order, and causation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no negligence claim against McMillan due to lack of involvement in the final transaction, and no duty to warn Thompson and Giahi given the "as is" agreement and client's explicit instructions not to investigate environmental concerns.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion where the third parties (McMillan LLP, Philip Thompson, and Marssa Giahi) were granted judgment in a solicitors' negligence action brought by the defendants (Crosslink Bridge Corp. and Andrew Penuvchev).

The third parties sought substantial indemnity costs, citing complete success and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendants opposed, raising access to justice concerns and disputing the reasonableness and proportionality of the hours claimed.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the time spent by counsel for the third parties to be disproportionate to the result.

Consequently, the court reduced McMillan LLP's requested costs from $209,897.73 to $140,000 and Philip Thompson and Marssa Giahi's requested costs from $256,604.64 to $110,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, deeming these adjusted amounts reasonable in the circumstances.

The third-party solicitors McMillan LLP, Philip Thompson, and Marssa Giahi brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims of negligence brought against them by defendants Crosslink Bridge Corp. and Andrew Penuvchev.

The defendants alleged the solicitors failed to warn them of environmental risks associated with purchasing contaminated railway lands.

The court found that the solicitors were not negligent, as their retainers were limited, the clients were sophisticated and had conducted their own due diligence, and the environmental disclosure documents were not provided to the solicitors.

Furthermore, the court found the third-party claims were barred by the expiration of the applicable limitation periods.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claims against the third parties were dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that partially dismissed his summary judgment motion.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's slander claim but refused to dismiss the respondent's sexual assault claim, finding no settlement had been reached and that the respondent's claim was not statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding no settlement occurred and that the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, 2016 amendments should not apply retroactively.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and misapplied the law regarding settlement.

However, the court declined to make its own findings on the settlement issue due to significant credibility disputes and directed the matter proceed to trial on all issues.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Bloor Street Diner Limited.

The applicant sought costs of $154,223.35 on a partial indemnity basis, while the respondent proposed $87,011.24.

The court considered the importance of the application, the extensive material filed, cross-examinations, and the two-day argument.

Despite some duplication of effort by counsel and the straightforward nature of the commercial lease terms, the court awarded the applicant $120,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding it a fair and reasonable amount based on proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the HPARB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a preliminary hearing by conference call to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for sexual assault and slander.

The defendant argued the sexual assault claim was statute-barred and had been settled for $50,000, and that the slander claim lacked evidence and special damages.

The court dismissed the slander claim due to a lack of evidence and failure to prove special damages.

However, the court found no settlement had been reached as there was no meeting of the minds.

Furthermore, the sexual assault claim was not statute-barred because the plaintiff did not discover the claim until consulting a lawyer, the limitation period was suspended due to presumed incapacity, and recent legislative amendments eliminated the limitation period for sexual assault claims.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in several real estate corporations, sought leave to commence a derivative action and amended their statement of claim to add new causes of action following the discovery of a multi-million dollar fraud by a co-investor.

The defendants moved to strike the new claims and opposed the derivative action.

The court held that the motion for leave to commence a derivative action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in CIBC v. Green regarding the unavailability of nunc pro tunc orders to circumvent expired limitation periods.

The court also struck the new claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence as statute-barred, but allowed the unjust enrichment and oppression claims to proceed.

The applicant general partner sought a declaration that a third‑party offer to purchase limited partnership units was not bona fide and was a sham designed to trigger right‑of‑first‑refusal provisions in a partnership agreement.

The applicant argued the offer was structured to allow a particular limited partner to obtain sufficient units to gain a veto over extraordinary resolutions requiring 75% approval.

The court considered the legal test for bona fide offers in the context of rights of first refusal, including whether the offer was made in good faith, genuine, and not a sham.

The court held that the offer was a legitimate third‑party offer at a reasonable price and that the evidence did not establish an absence of bona fides.

The application for a declaration was dismissed.

The respondents requested to dismiss or defer the human rights application on the basis that the facts and issues were currently before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way of proceeding, as concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues raise the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the HPARB proceeding.