Robert B. Bell

The appellant reinsurer appealed a trial judgment ordering it to indemnify the respondent retrocedant for its share of a $140 million settlement reached by the lead insurer regarding a business interruption claim.

The appellant argued it was not bound by the 'follow settlements' clause in the retrocession agreement because it had not agreed to the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant was bound by the single proviso follow settlements clause, that the settlement arguably fell within coverage as a matter of law, and that the lead insurer took proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

Following a successful trial where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $8.9 million, the plaintiff sought costs of $3.49 million based on a Rule 49.10 offer.

The defendant argued the offer was not a true compromise and challenged the proportionality of costs and specific disbursements.

The court found the Rule 49.10 offer was a genuine compromise, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court allowed disbursements for fact witness preparation and e-discovery, but disallowed fees for an expert who did not testify.

Costs were fixed at $2.8 million.

The plaintiff, Wiener Städtische Versicherung AG (VIG), a reinsurer, sought to recover funds from the defendant, Infrassure Ltd., a retrocessionaire, under a retrocession agreement.

VIG had paid its portion of a $140 million settlement to Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. (Zurich) for a business interruption claim by Vale (Canada) Limited.

Infrassure denied liability, arguing it was not contractually bound to follow the settlement and that Zurich failed to take proper and businesslike steps.

The court found that Infrassure was contractually bound by the "follow the settlements" clause and that Zurich had taken proper and businesslike steps in reaching the settlement.

Judgment was granted in favour of VIG for the settlement amount and loss adjustment costs, with the court denying VIG's claim for punitive damages.

DGAP Investments Ltd. sought a stay pending leave to appeal an order from the supervising judge in a CCAA proceeding.

The order authorized Stelco Inc. to acquire partnership units in a Land Vehicle, which DGAP argued would obstruct its prior agreement to purchase land from the Land Vehicle.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding that DGAP's case for leave to appeal was weak on the merits, there was no irreparable harm given the supervising judge's measures to protect DGAP's interests, and the balance of convenience favoured dismissing the stay to allow the CCAA proceeding to conclude and benefit aging stakeholders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the leave to appeal motion was expedited.

DGAP Investments Limited brought a motion seeking a declaration that provisions governing shared facilities and reciprocal easement agreements in a reconveyance agreement with Stelco Inc. had been complied with or were unnecessary, or alternatively, for court approval of its proposed easement agreement.

This dispute arose within the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving U.S. Steel Canada Inc. The court dismissed DGAP's motion, rejecting its interpretation that the Reconveyance Date had passed and that easement obligations no longer existed.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under section 11 of the CCAA to resolve such impasses to ensure the timely completion of the reconveyance.

While acknowledging an impasse, the court declined to impose DGAP's specific easement agreement due to an insufficiently developed record, instead ordering continued negotiations and a future case conference to schedule a motion for a judicial determination of the easement dispute.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) heard two motions within a long-standing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding concerning U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (now Stelco Inc.).

Stelco Inc. sought approval for a Securities Purchase Agreement (SPA) to acquire the remaining ownership interest in a Land Vehicle from various Stakeholders (employees, retirees, pensioners).

DGAP Investments Ltd., a defendant, brought a cross-motion seeking a strict timetable for the completion of a separate land sale agreement (DGAP Sale Agreement) before the SPA could close, alleging bad faith by Stelco.

The court granted Stelco's motion, finding the SPA beneficial to the Stakeholders by providing immediate monetization and extricating them from ongoing litigation.

DGAP's motion was dismissed, as the court found no evidence of bad faith by Stelco sufficient to delay the SPA, and determined that the SPA and DGAP Sale Agreement were not mutually exclusive.

The court emphasized continued judicial supervision and the Monitor's role in future transactions.

Stelco Inc. sought leave to appeal an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it to complete the severance and conveyance of a parcel of land (the "Reconveyance Parcel") to Legacy Lands Limited Partnership's nominee, in accordance with a 2018 reconveyance agreement.

Ernst & Young Inc., as court-appointed Monitor in the U.S. Steel Canada Inc. CCAA proceeding, and DGAP Investments Ltd., a purchaser of the land, opposed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Stelco's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in concluding the CCAA applied, and that the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious nor did it raise issues of significance to insolvency practice.

The court upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to grant specific performance and his finding regarding waiver of MOECC consent.

The defendant in a reinsurance dispute brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to particularize policy exclusions it relied upon to dispute the quantum of a business interruption claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the amendments amounted to the withdrawal of an admission under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant had always disputed quantum, the amendments merely clarified how quantum should be calculated, and no deliberate concession had been made that would trigger Rule 51.05.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to increase damages and add allegations regarding the defendant's misuse of a lifetime loyalty program certificate, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

The defendant opposed, arguing the amendments introduced a new cause of action after the limitation period expired and failed to properly plead unjust enrichment.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they fell within the factual matrix of the existing breach of contract claim.

However, the court refused the amendment adding a claim for unjust enrichment because the plaintiff failed to plead an absence of juristic reason, and struck a reference to a breach of a separate 2011 agreement.

This appeal concerned which party should bear the cost of interim preservation of vehicles in a damages action.

BMW claimed total loss of 2,966 vehicles due to Autoport's negligence and sought to dispose of them, while Autoport required their preservation for inspection.

The Master and Divisional Court ordered Autoport to bear the costs, but the Appeal Judge reversed, placing the burden on BMW.

The Court of Appeal found errors in the lower courts' application of Rule 45.01, emphasizing that the test for interim preservation of evidence should focus on trial fairness, not a rigid "balance of convenience" test.

The court concluded that BMW, as the party in possession of the evidence and with the information needed for Autoport's inspection, must bear the costs of preservation until it provides the necessary disclosure.

The representative plaintiffs in a class action brought a motion for approval of their retainer agreements, class counsel's fees and disbursements of $175,000, and a $500 honorarium for each representative plaintiff.

The court found the honorarium modest and appropriate.

The court also approved the contingency retainer agreements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found the requested fees to be fair and reasonable given the results achieved, the risks undertaken, and the fact that the defendants agreed to pay the fees.

The representative plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement in a class action against General Motors regarding incorrect fuel economy stickers on certain 2016 model year vehicles.

The settlement provided class members with either a cash payment equivalent to a prior voluntary compensation program or a $2,000 voucher for a new vehicle.

The court found the settlement, negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved it along with class counsel fees of $175,000.

The plaintiffs, Falcon Motor Express Ltd. and Jarnail Singh Sidhu, brought a motion for an interim order under s. 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act, seeking to compel the defendant, Arandeep Singh Grewal, to immediately transfer his 50% shares in Falcon to Jarnail or Falcon, without payment or security.

This motion followed an earlier interlocutory order removing Grewal as a director and officer due to oppressive conduct and wrongful competition.

The plaintiffs argued that Falcon could not obtain necessary financing as long as Grewal remained a shareholder, causing irreparable harm.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of oppression and irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored them.

However, the court declined to order the transfer without security, noting that Falcon could not be the purchaser due to solvency requirements and its inability to claim set-off as a "complainant." The court ordered Grewal to transfer his shares to Jarnail, conditional on Jarnail posting $2 million security, to be held until further order.

These consolidated appeals arise from related class actions certified in 2012 concerning bingo license and administration fees charged by two municipalities.

The appellants, charitable organizations, sought to amend their pleadings after the opt-out period expired to claim disgorgement of all allegedly illegal fees received by the municipalities, including those paid by persons who had opted out of the class.

The Court of Appeal quashed appeals of interlocutory orders lifting protective orders that had shielded the identities of opt-outs during a reconsideration period, and dismissed appeals of orders refusing leave to amend the statements of claim.

The court held that the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the nature of the certified claims and lacked reasonable prospect of success.

The Acuity defendants moved for summary judgment in a fire loss claim, arguing no causal connection could be proven between the fire and their light fixtures.

The plaintiff alleged a design defect in the open luminaires led to a metal halide bulb rupture, igniting a tarp.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial on causation, noting conflicting expert evidence and deficiencies in the initial fire investigation due to premature site clearance.

The motion for summary judgment was not granted, but the court directed further oral evidence to be adduced on the causation issue to potentially streamline the lengthy and expensive litigation.

In a class proceeding concerning a college program that failed to deliver promised professional designations, the court issued an addendum addressing the residual market value of the diploma received by class members.

The court reconsidered supplementary submissions regarding whether the diploma had measurable value independent of the promised designations.

While the plaintiffs argued the diploma had little or no value and the defendant contended it retained full value, the court determined that the diploma had limited residual value based on evidence about employment outcomes, educational background of students, and survey data.

The court concluded that the residual value of the diploma was approximately 15% of the direct costs incurred by class members.

Aggregate damages were therefore fixed at 85% of the direct costs for students who completed the program.

The appellant appealed a case management master's order compelling answers to various discovery questions in litigation arising from the crash of a Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft and a subsequent insurance coverage dispute.

The appellant argued the questions were irrelevant because the case turned solely on contractual interpretation of a pilot training clause and also asserted statutory privilege over information related to a Transportation Safety Board investigation.

The court held that the circumstances of the accident, pilot training, and statements provided to the Transportation Safety Board were relevant to issues raised in the pleadings, including whether simulator time satisfied the contractual pilot training requirement.

The court further held the statutory privilege argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, in any event, the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the claimed privilege.

The master's discovery orders were upheld.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.