Rebecca Joan Burrows

The defendants moved for leave under Rule 25.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to deliver a rejoinder responding to the plaintiffs’ Reply.

The court considered the restrictive test governing when pleadings may continue beyond a reply, emphasizing that leave should only be granted where the reply introduces new and important matters that could not reasonably have been anticipated in the statement of defence.

The motion arose in complex litigation concerning family disputes over corporate, trust, and estate arrangements involving a real estate business and charitable structures.

The court concluded that several allegations raised in the reply—including claims regarding mistaken transfers of investment assets, fiduciary breaches, property management arrangements, and trust income expectations—introduced new factual bases and potential grounds of liability.

Leave was granted to deliver the proposed rejoinder in full.

Two related applications arose from a commercial arbitration concerning a Liquidity Payment obligation under a financing arrangement between a dairy company and a pension fund.

The moving party sought to set aside a final arbitral award under s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging breaches of procedural fairness and arguing the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was unreasonable.

The court held the arbitration process was fair, the parties had adequate opportunity to present their cases, and the arbitrator’s interpretation of the Liquidity Payment Agreement was consistent with its plain language.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed.

The responding party’s application to enforce the arbitral award and supplementary costs award was granted, with interest fixed at 3% in accordance with the contract and applicable statutory rates.

The corporation sought an order approving a proposed arrangement to collapse its dual-class share structure by purchasing for cancellation all outstanding Class B shares for consideration comprising 9 million newly issued Class A shares and US$300 million in cash.

The application judge approved the arrangement.

The opposing shareholders appealed, arguing the application judge erred in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly applied the BCE test.

The corporation was not required to demonstrate with certainty that the benefits of the arrangement would offset the costs, but only a reasonable prospect of clearly identified benefits.

The affirmative vote of the Class A shareholders was important evidence supporting the fairness of the arrangement.

The appellant physician sued the respondent newspapers for breach of confidence and conversion after they published photographs taken during a cosmetic surgery.

In the civil proceeding, the respondents sought production of documents relating to disciplinary proceedings before the College of Nurses and the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The motions judge ordered the documents included in the appellant's Affidavit of Documents.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 prohibits the use of College documents in civil proceedings, meaning they are not required to be disclosed in an Affidavit of Documents.