Ronald Carr

The debtor company in CCAA proceedings brought a motion seeking a declaration that two Occupational Health and Safety Act prosecutions commenced by the provincial labour ministry were stayed by the CCAA initial order, or alternatively that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 11.1(4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The debtor argued that any conviction would result only in monetary fines, rendering the ministry a creditor whose claim should be addressed within the insolvency process.

The court held that regulatory prosecutions are not equivalent to creditor enforcement where no monetary obligation has yet crystallized and the regulator is acting in a prosecutorial capacity.

Applying the Supreme Court’s test for regulatory claims under insolvency legislation, the court concluded that the ministry was not acting as a creditor and that the proceedings remained regulatory in nature.

The motion to declare the prosecutions stayed was therefore dismissed.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s construction tendering claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs to the date of its Rule 49 offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, holding that a nominal offer to dismiss the action without costs did not justify enhanced costs absent sanctionable conduct by the plaintiff.

Given the unsettled state of the law on construction tendering issues and the legitimate legal dispute raised, the court found the case warranted litigation.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded with reductions to certain fees and disbursements, including expert and travel expenses.

Landowners brought applications under the Beds of Navigable Waters Act seeking a determination of title to the bed of a creek running through their properties.

Under s. 1 of the Act, if the waterway was navigable at the time of the Crown grant, the bed remains vested in the Crown unless expressly granted.

The court considered historical surveys, expert evidence, photographs, and testimony regarding seasonal water levels and canoe use.

Applying established case law on navigability and the concept of “public utility,” the court found the waterway was likely navigable for significant portions of the year at the time of the 1816 Crown grant.

Consequently, the bed of the stream remained Crown property and severed the applicants’ lands.

The plaintiff contractor challenged the rejection of its bid in a public tender for a highway construction project, alleging breach of the tendering process and seeking lost profits after the contract was awarded to a higher bidder.

The owner investigated the bid following a complaint and determined that the bidder had understated the declared value of imported steel, a factor used to calculate the adjusted tender price.

The court held that the owner was entitled to investigate compliance beyond the face of the bid and that the inaccurate declaration constituted a material non-compliance with the tender requirements, preventing formation of Contract A under the tendering framework.

The court further held that even if there had been a breach, the claim would have been barred by an exclusion clause in the tender documents.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought declarations that funds advanced under a provincial training funding agreement were held in trust and should be returned following the insolvency of the recipient limited partnership.

The court considered whether the funds were impressed with a Quistclose trust and whether a receiver’s charging order nonetheless had priority over those funds.

Applying authorities including Quistclose and Twinsectra, the court held that the agreement restricted the use of funds to a specific training project and required repayment of unspent funds, demonstrating the necessary intention to create a trust.

The court found the remaining funds held by the receiver were impressed with a trust in favour of the applicant but concluded they were subject to the receiver’s previously granted charging order.

The funding agreement was declared terminated.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim in a long‑standing breach of contract action relating to highway reconstruction and alleged misrepresentation of available rock quantities.

The defendant Crown opposed a proposed amendment referring to numerous similar contractor claims against the Ministry, arguing the amendment was irrelevant and would trigger extensive documentary production and prejudice.

The court held that evidence of similar claims existing at the time the contract was executed could be relevant to whether the Ministry knew or ought to have known its representations were inaccurate.

However, claims made after execution of the contract were not relevant.

Leave to amend was granted with the limitation that references to post‑contract claims be removed.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The defendant Ministry of Transportation (MTO) brought a motion to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim to plead that the plaintiff was a tenant at will of the Crown and that no compensation was owed under the Public Lands Act.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike existing paragraphs of the defence.

The court denied the MTO's request to amend the pleadings regarding the tenancy at will issue, finding it was barred by res judicata as it should have been pursued in a prior proceeding before the Mining and Lands Commissioner.

However, the court allowed the amendment regarding the Public Lands Act.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike was dismissed.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order of a motions judge that set aside a Master's order requiring affiants to re-attend cross-examinations to answer refusals.

The motions judge had found that the Master erred in principle by improperly applying the principle of proportionality to enlarge the scope of cross-examination beyond what is permissible.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) appealed a decision validating a mining claim staked on Crown land where the MTO was planning a new highway route.

The MTO argued the land was in 'actual use' and thus exempt from staking under the Mining Act.

The Mining and Land Commissioner found the MTO's preliminary planning activities did not constitute 'actual use'.

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that drawing the line between preliminary and substantive use was within the Commissioner's expertise and the outcome was reasonable.

The respondents sought costs for two appeals following the release of the court's reasons.

For the first appeal, the court declined to award costs, agreeing with the appellants that their partial success on appeal warranted an offset against the significant unadjusted costs awarded in the court below.

For the second appeal, where the respondents were entirely successful, the court awarded costs fixed at $7,500, noting the appeal was straightforward and took little time.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty in several real estate transactions with the Ontario Realty Corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on most transactions, including orders for disgorgement of profits based on knowing receipt and conspiracy with a fiduciary.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the King's Highway 2A property, finding no basis for disgorgement where no fiduciary breach or damages were proven.

The respondents' cross-appeal was allowed in part, holding a former employee jointly and severally liable for a $300,000 improper price abatement.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to deny him costs after the respondents withdrew all claims against him during closing arguments.

The appellant had made two early offers to settle, which were rejected.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to treat the appellant as prima facie entitled to costs and by ignoring the settlement offers.

The Court awarded partial indemnity costs to the appellant, reduced to reflect some misconduct identified by the trial judge.

The Crown appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing the Ministry of Transportation's award of a highway construction contract to the lowest bidder.

The second-lowest bidder had argued the winning bid was non-compliant because it declared no imported steel, despite design drawings specifying rolled steel beams unavailable in Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Ministry's investigation and subsequent conclusion that the winning bid was compliant—based on the bidder's intention to use Canadian welded steel that met structural standards—was reasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision allowing the Attorney General to assess their legal bills under the Solicitors Act.

The Attorney General was required to pay the bills under a 'Fisher' order, which provided that Legal Aid Ontario would vet and approve them.

The Court of Appeal held that this vetting did not preclude an assessment under s. 9 of the Solicitors Act.

The court also agreed that 'special circumstances' existed under s. 11 of the Act, given the trial judge's comments and the Attorney General's inability to move for an assessment before the trial concluded.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The applicant, Bot Construction Limited, sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's decision to award a road construction contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the winning bid was non-compliant because it failed to declare imported steel, despite the project specifications requiring rolled steel beams that are unavailable in Canada.

The Divisional Court found that the Ministry's decision that the bid was compliant was unreasonable, as the bid could not meet the mandatory specifications using only Canadian steel.

The Court held that the Ministry breached its duty of fairness by privately accepting the winning bidder's proposal to substitute welded steel without notifying other bidders, and quashed the contract award.

The appellants, having successfully appealed a decision regarding tender documents, sought costs for the appeal and a prior stay motion.

The Crown respondents supported the appeal and sought costs for the original application.

The respondent opposed the amounts claimed as excessive and resisted the Crown's request for application costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants $30,000 in costs for the appeal and stay motion, payable by the respondent, but declined to award the Crown any costs for the original application.

The moving parties, two individual defendants, brought a motion to strike a notice of cross-appeal delivered by the respondents.

The moving parties argued that because they had not appealed the trial judgment and the cross-appeal raised issues unrelated to the main appeal brought by other defendants, the respondents were required to commence a fresh appeal rather than a cross-appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 61.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is broad enough to permit a cross-appeal even where the issues and parties differ from those in the main appeal.

The Bot Group appealed a declaration that a late bid submitted by Coco Paving for a Ministry of Transportation (MTO) contract was compliant.

Coco's bid was received electronically 28 minutes after the tender closing time, allegedly due to a computer glitch.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge misinterpreted the tender documents.

The Court held that the MTO's tender process strictly precluded the consideration of bids received after the closing time, and no contractual duty of fairness was owed to a non-compliant bidder.