Rebecca Huang

The appellant, Sky Solar, appealed an arbitration award dismissing its claim for indemnification against the respondent, Marnoch, for losses resulting from fires caused by failed electrical transformers.

The arbitrator found that Marnoch was not liable under the contractual warranties because Sky Solar had chosen the transformers and did not rely on Marnoch's skill and judgment.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no extricable errors of law and concluding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and decision not to determine the liability of a non-party manufacturer were reasonable.

The appellants, a Canadian citizen and several foreign corporations, appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay an action brought against them in Ontario for misappropriation of proprietary information.

They argued the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction or should decline it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the contracts were made in Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection.

The Court also affirmed that the appellants failed to discharge their burden of proving China was a more appropriate forum, noting that China does not recognize breach of fiduciary duty, a key cause of action pleaded.

The moving party sought an order compelling the insurer and broker defendants to produce additional documents and deliver a further and better affidavit of documents in an action concerning insurance coverage and alleged breach of the duty of utmost good faith.

The dispute arose after the insurer denied coverage relating to failures of transformers in solar installations, and the plaintiff alleged the defendants conducted an inadequate investigation and acted in bad faith.

The court held that the agency agreement between the insurer and broker, the underwriting file, and the claims and investigation files were relevant to issues of coverage and bad faith and therefore producible.

The court further found that the defendants failed to properly establish claims of solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege and ordered more particularized privilege schedules.

The motion was granted and the defendants were ordered to produce the requested documents and communications within 30 days.

The moving parties, a group of affiliated companies, sought leave to appeal a judgment setting aside an ex parte CCAA Initial Order.

The respondents, creditors of a Singapore subsidiary, successfully argued before the application judge that the CCAA court lacked jurisdiction over the subsidiary.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal held he had jurisdiction to hear the leave motion but refused leave, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the real debtors were Singapore companies with little connection to Canada and that the evidence did not support the initial ex parte findings of insolvency and intertwined finances.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for non-compliance with the Limitations Act, 2002.

She argued the respondent should be precluded from relying on the limitation period defence due to fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations intended to induce her to forebear from enforcing her rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that fraudulent concealment was not pleaded at trial and the record did not support a conscious plan to deceive.

Furthermore, any oral acknowledgments of the debt could not revive it, as the Act requires acknowledgments to be in writing.

The plaintiff, a Toronto lawyer and community volunteer, brought a defamation action against a newspaper and journalist over an article questioning transparency in the handling of donations from a charity concert organized to raise funds for victims of the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.

The court held that, read in context, the article did not convey a defamatory meaning about the plaintiff.

In any event, the defendants established the defences of substantial truth, fair comment on a matter of public interest, and responsible communication.

The court also found no evidence of malice and concluded that the plaintiff had not proven any meaningful reputational harm.

The appellants brought a motion to stay their own appeal pending the trial judge's determination of several outstanding issues following a complex, multi-party trial involving allegations of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The respondents opposed the stay, arguing the issues relating to them were discrete and finally disposed of.

The Court of Appeal held that the 'interests of justice' test, rather than the RJR-Macdonald test, applies when a party seeks to stay an appeal pending another body's decision.

Balancing the need for expeditious justice against the benefits of a single appeal, the court granted a 120-day stay of the appeal, on the condition that the appellants immediately order the necessary transcripts.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her solicitor negligence claim against the respondent.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding the respondent was not obliged to put in writing that he was not retained for tort and accident benefit claims, and in failing to decide whether his duty of care extended to reviewing limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant understood the scope of the retainer and that the respondent had in fact reviewed the limitation periods with her.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a California judgment of approximately (US)$17 million against the defendant Jay Chiang and sought a declaration that the debt survives his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the BIA.

The plaintiffs also brought a second action alleging that Jay Chiang and numerous family members engaged in fraudulent conveyances and a conspiracy to hide assets and frustrate collection efforts.

The court enforced the California judgment in the amount of (US)$9,678,832 but declined to declare that the debt survives bankruptcy, finding no fiduciary duty was owed to the plaintiffs.

The court found Jay Chiang liable for fraudulent conveyances and conspiracy, but dismissed the claims against most of the other family members, finding they were unwitting conduits used by Jay Chiang.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment awarding damages to the respondent vendor for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The appellant argued he refused to close because he discovered a nearby landfill site, which he claimed the vendor had a duty to disclose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the appellant failed to lead any evidence that the landfill posed a health and safety risk, and that the real reason for failing to close was an inability to arrange financing.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs order, setting aside the full indemnity costs awarded by the motion judge and replacing them with partial indemnity costs, as there was no finding of bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents.

The dispute arose from the exercise of a shotgun buy/sell provision in a unanimous shareholders' agreement.

The appellant alleged breach of fiduciary duty, theft of corporate opportunity, and other claims after learning the respondent financed the buyout by agreeing to transfer corporate properties to a lender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge applied the correct summary judgment test and correctly concluded that no fiduciary duty exists between shareholders exercising a shotgun provision, nor was there any appropriation of a corporate opportunity.