Robert William Staley

The receiver of Ravelston Corporation Limited obtained an order allowing it to attorn to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court and plead not guilty to criminal charges on behalf of the corporation.

A shareholder and creditor appealed the order, arguing it involved future rights under s. 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, or alternatively sought leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding the order did not involve future rights but merely directed how present rights should be exercised.

The court also refused leave to appeal, concluding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the supervising judge made no error in principle in exercising his discretion.

The applicants sought to vary management cease trade orders (MCTOs) under section 144 of the Securities Act to permit trading in connection with a proposed going private transaction by Hollinger Inc. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that varying the MCTOs would not be prejudicial to the public interest.

The Commission cited concerns regarding the lack of current audited financial statements, the adequacy of the independent valuation, the potential conflicts of interest in the proposed litigation trust, and evidence of undue influence exerted by related parties on the independent committee and valuator.

The applications were denied.

The applicants, chartered accountants charged with professional misconduct, brought a motion for review of an order dismissing their request to compel the respondent's Professional Conduct Committee to file a record of proceedings under section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, holding that the committee's power to investigate and charge is not a 'statutory power of decision' as defined in the Act, and therefore section 10 does not apply.

The applicants sought judicial review of the investigative process leading to charges by the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

On a motion to determine who must file the record under Rule 68.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the Committee was not acting as a court or tribunal in its investigative function.

Therefore, Rule 68.04(1)(b) applied, requiring the applicants to prepare and file the record.

The motion was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a decision holding it liable in nuisance for damage caused to the respondents' orchards by the use of road salt as a de-icing agent on an adjoining highway.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing entirely with the trial judge's conclusions and reasons, which had been affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents on a solicitor and client basis.

During a hearing for an unfair labour practice application, the respondent union sought production of notes that a complainant witness had used to refresh his memory prior to testifying.

The witness did not refer to the notes during his examination-in-chief.

The Board held that ordering production of such notes is a matter of discretion.

The Board declined to order production because the respondent failed to establish the factual basis for the exercise of discretion, such as the time elapsed between the witness referring to the notes and giving evidence, and because notes prepared for counsel are privileged.