Robert Bell

ID Inc. appealed the dismissal of its claim against StrategyCorp, which arose from a dispute over the transformation of a billboard to a digital sign and a related consulting agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that StrategyCorp did not intentionally interfere with ID Inc.'s economic relations, the consulting agreement was conditional on a separate agreement that never materialized, StrategyCorp had repudiated the agreement which ID Inc. accepted by silence, and StrategyCorp did not breach its duty of good faith.

The appeal was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease, specifically the allocation of risk for fire damage.

The landlord, James Dick Construction Limited (JDC), sued its tenant, Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited (CAW), for damages after a fire destroyed one leased building and damaged another.

JDC alleged CAW breached the lease by failing to maintain the sprinkler system.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the landlord's covenant to insure the buildings allocated the risk of fire loss to the landlord, even if the tenant was responsible for sprinkler system repair expenses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that while a covenant to insure generally implies risk allocation to the covenantor, this is not an absolute rule and requires a holistic interpretation of the entire contract and surrounding circumstances.

The Court found no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the law.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., and the defendants, Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp., sought costs following a trial.

ID Inc. was awarded damages against TWPA and sought partial indemnity costs for the trial and substantial indemnity costs for an interest motion.

StrategyCorp., whose claim was dismissed, sought full indemnity costs against ID Inc. The court awarded ID Inc. partial indemnity costs of $641,891.66 against TWPA, with reductions for certain disbursements and a 15% reduction for divided success on issues.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs for the interest motion, awarding partial indemnity instead, with further reductions for excessive time and unnecessary attendance.

StrategyCorp. was awarded partial indemnity costs of $665,354.31 against ID Inc., with reductions for time spent on an unscheduled summary judgment motion and a separate OIC complaint.

The court declined to award costs against ID Inc.'s principal personally or to direct TWPA's payment to ID Inc. to first satisfy StrategyCorp.'s costs.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sought pre- and post-judgment interest at a contractual rate of 26.8% per annum following a successful breach of contract claim against Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA).

The court had previously awarded damages for lost profits and maintenance.

The key issues were whether ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate without amending its pleading, and if an amendment was necessary, whether leave should be granted.

The court found that ID Inc. was entitled to the contractual interest rate under common law, as the parties had agreed to and contemplated this rate in their Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA), and the TWPA was not prejudiced despite the delay in formally pleading it.

The court awarded ID Inc. pre- and post-judgment interest at 26.8% on the total damages.

The plaintiff, ID Inc., sued the Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (TWPA) and StrategyCorp for breach of contract, interference with economic relations, and conspiracy regarding a project to convert a static billboard at the Ontario Food Terminal to a digital sign.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement for a share of advertising revenue and a written Sale and Maintenance Agreement (SMA).

The court found no oral agreement existed but held that the TWPA breached the SMA and its duty of good faith by waiving a 360-day permit condition and then secretly contracting with a competitor.

Claims against StrategyCorp for interference, conspiracy, and breach of confidence were dismissed.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost profits on the construction and maintenance of the sign.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding an alleged emissions defeat device in certain diesel-engine vehicles.

The defendants had already initiated a recall to repair the defeat device at no cost, rendering the vehicles compliant with emissions regulations.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of compensable harm, such as paying a premium price or experiencing reduced fuel economy post-repair.

Without compensable harm, the court held that a class action would not advance the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification, or judicial economy.

The court approved a $2.1 billion class action settlement for Canadian owners and lessees of VW 2.0-litre diesel vehicles affected by the "defeat device" fraud.

The settlement provides cash payments and options for vehicle buyback or emissions modification, with the buyback option generally offering a larger recovery.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, exceeding what members would likely recover under provincial consumer protection legislation or tort law.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes regarding Volkswagen's installation of a 'defeat device' in certain diesel vehicles.

The court found that the requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, including an identifiable class and common issues.

The court also determined it had jurisdiction to certify a national class, noting the efficiency and comity of doing so.

The motion for certification, along with the approval of an unprecedentedly comprehensive notice plan, was granted.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, and class counsel's legal fees after eight years of litigation, including trials and appeals.

The class action arose from misrepresentations by George Brown College regarding industry designations for its International Business Management Program.

The settlement provides $2.725 million to 108 class members, covering direct costs and a portion of foregone income, and was deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The applicant, a Muslim woman, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and racial discrimination by her store manager.

She also alleged that the respondent failed to properly investigate her internal complaint and terminated her employment as a reprisal for raising these concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's evidence regarding the harassment was not credible, particularly because she failed to disclose the most significant allegations during the internal investigation.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent adequately investigated the complaint and that the termination was based on performance issues, not as a reprisal for enforcing her rights under the Human Rights Code.

The appellant, Jetport Inc., appealed a Master's order regarding discovery refusals in three related actions arising from an aviation insurance coverage dispute.

The court allowed the appeal in part, ordering the respondent insurer to answer questions about its course of conduct with other insureds regarding policy exemptions, finding them relevant to the pleadings.

The court also relieved the appellant from answering a question about claims against other third parties, as it was not relevant to mitigation.

However, the court upheld the Master's order requiring the appellant to answer questions about whether its employee sought legal advice from in-house counsel regarding a pilot clause, finding that disclosing the fact of such discussions did not breach solicitor-client privilege.

Following the dismissal of appeals from a master's decision rejecting claims of litigation privilege, the court determined costs.

The responding parties sought partial indemnity costs reflecting significant legal work and extensive materials filed on the appeal.

The court applied the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that costs must be fair and reasonable and should reflect the parties’ reasonable expectations.

The court rejected arguments that the large volume of materials filed by the appellant should influence the award and noted that the appellant advanced an arguable legal position without misconduct.

The court awarded $8,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and tax to each group of respondents.

Appeal from a Master's order compelling production of communications and answers on discovery despite a claim of litigation privilege.

The appellant argued that emails and a meeting with its insurance broker were created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation following denial of insurance coverage for an aircraft crash.

The court held that the appellant failed to establish an evidentiary basis that the dominant purpose of the communications was litigation, noting that the available evidence suggested the discussions focused on advancing the insurance claim rather than preparing for litigation.

The court further held that any common interest litigation privilege between the insured and the broker would have been dissolved once the insured commenced an action against the broker.

The Master's order compelling disclosure was upheld.

The moving party sought certification of a national class proceeding alleging that organic asphalt roofing shingles manufactured by the defendants were defective and prone to premature failure.

Claims were advanced in negligence and under various provincial consumer protection statutes, asserting that the shingles failed prematurely and exposed homeowners to risks such as water penetration, mould, and structural damage.

The defendants opposed certification on the grounds that the claim disclosed only pure economic loss, that no common defect existed across the products, and that individual remedies were preferable.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, that expert evidence provided some basis in fact for a common defect, and that the proposed class and common issues met the statutory requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

A class proceeding was found to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the efficiency of resolving common issues collectively.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal held a joint summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant unions sought judicial review of an interim decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding card-based certification.

The employer had provided lists of employees for two prospective bargaining units with 24 overlapping names.

The unions agreed between themselves on how to allocate the overlapping workers and argued the employer was bound by this agreement.

The Board ruled the employer was not a party to the agreement and ordered the employer to provide an unqualified list.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with its jurisprudence.

Following an appeal decision, the appellant requested a reconsideration, advising the court that the record regarding the Labour Relations Board proceedings was incomplete.

The appellant sought to proceed with a claim based on the alleged misuse of an Industry Fund.

The Court of Appeal declined to reconsider the matter, finding that the issue of the Board's jurisdiction under section 143 of the Labour Relations Act had not been previously decided by the Board.

The court held that the specialized tribunal should have the first opportunity to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction.

The appellant, a low-rise forming contractor, commenced an action against the respondent employers' association for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging misuse of an Industry Fund.

The motion judge dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, finding the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the association's statutory duty of fair representation and the reasonableness of levied fees, both of which are matters exclusively within the Board's jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.