Richard Lizius

The court dismissed the respondents’ motion to stay an application brought by Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, finding that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate, that the respondents had taken substantive steps in the litigation, and that they had moved with undue delay in seeking a stay.

The decision interprets the requirements for a stay under section 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, and applies recent appellate and Supreme Court authority on the prerequisites for a stay and the effect of participation in litigation.

Sher-E Punjab Broadcasting Inc. applied for relief from forfeiture of a license agreement with Corus Radio Inc. due to non-payment of fees.

Sher-E had invested significantly in the site and argued that previous non-payments were due to an oral agreement or ongoing disputes, and the most recent default was due to a misapprehension of a credit, family bereavement, and a key person's absence.

The court applied the three-factor test for relief from forfeiture: applicant's conduct, gravity of the breach, and disparity between the forfeited property's value and the damage caused by the breach.

The court found Sher-E's conduct, while not ideal, was not deliberate, the breach amount was small and easily remedied, and the potential harm to Sher-E from termination far outweighed the arrears.

Relief from forfeiture was granted, restoring the agreement, conditional on Sher-E paying all outstanding fees.

The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of a Special Committee report, three due diligence legal opinions, and answers to questions about missing marijuana inventory.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Special Committee report and the legal opinions were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the privilege had not been waived.

The court also held that the questions regarding the missing marijuana were irrelevant and disproportionate.

The motion concerned the terms of a judicially supervised sale of a limited partnership or its underlying real estate asset, following the respondent's failure to complete a purchase of the applicant's interest as previously ordered by the court.

Key contentious issues included whether the sale should be limited to arm's-length purchasers, the composition and disclosure of a "Floor Amount" (minimum sale price), the applicant's right to a credit bid, the consequences if the Floor Amount was not met, and the appropriate prejudgment interest rate.

The court ruled that both parties could participate in the bidding, the Floor Amount should not include the respondent's capital contributions but should include the applicant's post-default development costs, the Floor Amount should not be disclosed to bidders, and prejudgment interest should be 12% due to the respondent's conduct.

The court also granted a temporary sealing order for the file and reasons until the sale was completed.

The Applicant, Faith Bazos, sought to avoid paying costs to the Respondent, Bell Media Inc., after her application challenging Bell Media's refusal to run her political advertisements was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Bazos argued she was a public interest litigant and should be exempt from costs or pay reduced costs.

The court found that the jurisdictional issue was not novel and did not qualify her as a public interest litigant for the purpose of costs.

The court also found that it was not necessary for her to invoke the Superior Court's jurisdiction instead of the CRTC.

Consequently, the Respondent, as the successful party on the jurisdictional issue, was entitled to partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $43,117.90, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, finding the amount reasonable given the urgency and complexity of the jurisdictional hearing.

The applicant, a municipal election candidate, sought a declaration and mandatory order from the Superior Court of Justice to compel the respondent broadcaster to run her political advertisements, relying on CRTC regulations and the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the CRTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of its regulations.

While the court had concurrent jurisdiction for Charter claims, it declined to exercise it, determining that the entire application should be heard by the specialized tribunal.