Rebecca Torrance

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. moved for a declaration that an Assignment Agreement between Mometal Structures Inc. and 9357-1578 Quebec Inc. was null and void, and for dismissal of three related actions as an abuse of process.

The court found that the Assignment Agreement was not precluded by the subcontract, was not a bare assignment of a cause of action, and that 9357 was not required to immediately disclose the Assignment Agreement.

Zurich's motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

This case management conference addressed the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim and the defendants' request to vary the timetable for expert reports.

The court scheduled the motion to amend the statement of claim.

Regarding the expert reports, the court was prepared to consider an extension but required more specific information from the defendants regarding which reports needed expansion, why, and the estimated time required, rather than vacating the date outright.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address the expert report timetable.

A case management conference was held to address the parties' efforts to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiff delivered a proposed amended statement of claim following demands for particulars and written interrogatories.

The defendants required additional time to review the proposed claim to determine consent, timetable impacts, and the scope of any necessary motions.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address these issues.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision on costs, which had awarded partial indemnity costs of $450,000 to Pembina Pipeline Corp. and $500,000 to BluEarth Renewables Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's costs award was a discretionary decision entitled to deference.

The court concluded that there was no error in principle and the award was not plainly wrong, as the motion judge had properly considered factors such as the respondents' success, the complexity of the proceeding, the amounts at stake, and the conduct of the litigation.

The appellants, Greta Energy Inc. and Great Grand Valley 2 Limited Partnership, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against Pembina Pipeline Corporation and BluEarth Renewables Inc. The case involved the sale of bundled assets, some subject to Rights of First Refusal (ROFRs).

The appellants alleged that the respondents manipulated asset prices in bad faith to prevent the exercise of ROFRs, breaching duties of good faith and honest performance, inducing breach of contract, and conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the respondents did not breach their duty of good faith, did not owe a fiduciary duty, did not conspire, and did not induce breach of contract, as their actions were commercially reasonable and not intended to "eviscerate" the ROFRs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought approval of a national class action settlement regarding defective Caterpillar engines, along with approval of class counsel fees and representative plaintiff honoraria.

The settlement established an $8,000,000 escrow fund to compensate class members across Canada, excluding Quebec, where a parallel proceeding was settled.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, approved the $2.4 million counsel fee as proportionate to the risk and effort, and granted a $10,000 honorarium to both the Ontario and Quebec representative plaintiffs.

This is a costs endorsement following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants.

The court determined the scale and amount of costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on their offers to settle, which proposed dismissal of the action without costs.

The court found that such offers, while relevant, do not automatically attract substantial indemnity costs, and awarded partial indemnity costs, considering factors like success, complexity, amounts at stake, and litigation conduct.

The plaintiffs, who held a right of first refusal (ROFR) over certain wind farm assets, sued the vendor and the third-party purchaser, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate the purchase price allocation of the ROFR assets to discourage the plaintiffs from exercising their rights.

The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of the duty of good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the vendor acted in good faith and the purchaser was entitled to act in its own commercial self-interest.

The court held that a difference in valuation or a strategic bid allocation does not, without more, constitute a breach of the duty of good faith or an intent to eviscerate the ROFR.

In a case management conference, the plaintiff requested an amendment to the Discovery Timetable to allow more time to deliver written questions arising from the recent production of approximately 4,000 additional documents by the defendant.

The defendants did not dispute the need for additional time but questioned the structure of the questioning stages.

The court granted the amendment, extending the deadlines for the delivery of follow-up written questions and answers, and maintained the remainder of the timetable.

The 12th Case Management Conference addressed the timetable for expert reports and pleading amendments in a complex Indigenous litigation.

The Plaintiff sought a simultaneous exchange of expert reports, arguing for procedural reciprocity and efficiency.

The Defendants advocated for a sequential timetable, asserting it would allow them to better understand and respond to the Plaintiff's case, aligning with common practice in similar complex litigation.

The court adopted the Defendants' sequential timetable for expert reports, finding no basis to deviate from established practice in complex land claims.

The court also granted leave for the Plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, with the formal filing deferred due to COVID-19 court closures.

The 11th Case Management Conference addressed the trial process and timetable for a complex action involving historic evidence.

The parties agreed to a bifurcated trial but disagreed on the degree of bifurcation.

The plaintiff proposed a four-phase structure (two liability, two remedies/crossclaims), while the defendants proposed a two-phase structure (all liability in Phase 1, all remedies/crossclaims in Phase 2).

The court adopted the two-phase structure, finding it more efficient and less prone to inconsistencies, while reserving the right for parties to seek further refinement at the pre-trial stage.

A detailed timetable for pleadings, discovery, and documentary production was also established to keep the action on track for a 2022 trial.

The appellant, a manufacturer and supplier of touchscreens, appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act.

The trial judge found that touchscreens supplied to the respondent, a manufacturer of mobile display terminals, were defective due to poor lamination caused by the appellant's subcontractor.

The trial judge awarded damages of $355,193.49 to the respondent for replacement costs, labour, and shipping, offset against outstanding invoices.

The appeal court upheld the trial judgment on both liability and damages, finding no palpable and overriding error and rejecting all four grounds of appeal.