Ryan A. Morris

The appellant appealed a decision determining that interest on the principal outstanding under a note runs from the date of issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that without clear language, interest does not run on the balance owed before the note was issued and the payee, principal, and rate were fixed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' proposed class action statement of claim, arguing that the statutory cause of action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act was statute-barred because the plaintiffs did not obtain leave before the expiry of the three-year limitation period.

The court held that the common law special circumstances doctrine applies to the limitation period in the Securities Act, giving the court jurisdiction to make an order nunc pro tunc granting leave.

The court found special circumstances existed because the defendants had known of the claims since 2007 and suffered no prejudice.

The motion to strike the statutory claims was dismissed, but the common law negligent misrepresentation claim was struck with leave to amend for failing to plead detrimental reliance.

The landlord sought an interim injunction against a tenant operating a restaurant and nightclub alleged to be producing excessive noise that interfered with other commercial tenants in the building.

Evidence showed that noise levels regularly exceeded the maximum permitted level established in a pre-opening Noise Plan and municipal by-law enforcement had issued citations.

Applying the test for interlocutory injunctions from R.J.R. MacDonald v. Canada (A.G.), the court found a serious issue to be tried, a risk of irreparable harm to the landlord through loss of current and prospective tenants, and that the balance of convenience favoured interim relief.

The court ordered the tenant to limit sound output to 91 dBA and to facilitate installation of a noise monitoring system pending the full injunction hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing its application to review an IIROC Hearing Panel's refusal to stay proceedings.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction and could not provide procedural fairness because it lacked the power to compel non-member witnesses, which would prevent the applicant from making full answer and defence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the stay motion was premature, as any prejudice regarding missing evidence is best assessed during the hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its application for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase shares.

The trial judge found no binding contract had been formed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by focusing entirely on the subjective intent of the respondent's negotiator rather than applying the objective test for contract formation.

However, the Court declined to grant specific performance, noting that applying the objective test could still lead to a finding of no contract, and remitted the matter for a new trial.