Samantha Hale

The appellant sought to uphold a provincial spending limit restricting third party political advertising to $600,000 in the year before a fixed-date election, while political parties faced no limits in the first six months of that period.

The majority held that the spending limit infringes s. 3 of the Charter by creating an absolute disproportionality in the political discourse, allowing political parties to drown out third party voices during a critical democratic period.

The majority further held the limit could not be saved under s. 1 as it failed the minimal impairment stage.

Two sets of dissenting judges would have allowed the appeal, finding the limit did not infringe s. 3 of the Charter on the evidentiary record, with the dissenters disagreeing on whether an expressive component exists within s. 3.

The case involves a dispute between two brothers, Nickolas and George Georghiades, co-founders of a real estate business (LP).

Nickolas brought a motion seeking the appointment of an auditor, inspector, and monitor, and direct access to business information, alleging oppression and misappropriation of funds by George.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression due to George's control over information and the brothers' dysfunctional relationship.

The court ordered the appointment of an independent Monitor with a prescribed mandate to observe and report on the business's financial activities, in addition to an agreed-upon audit.

The request for a separate inspector/investigator and direct access was declined at this stage, with the possibility of revisiting if the Monitor's reports indicate ongoing difficulties.

No costs were awarded.

This appeal concerned a dispute over the exercise of options to purchase commercial properties.

The purchase price was to be the midpoint of two appraisals, which were widely divergent.

The Tenant (purchaser) tendered only the amount of its own appraisal, holding the disputed balance in trust with its solicitor, which the Landlord (vendor) refused to accept.

The application judge found the tender sufficient and ordered specific performance.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that the Tenant's partial tender constituted a material breach of the purchase and sale contract.

The court found that a purchaser cannot unilaterally withhold a portion of the purchase price, even if disputed, and that the "abatement cases" relied upon by the lower court were distinguishable.

The Tenant's cross-appeal regarding the validity of the Landlord's appraisal was dismissed.

The options were declared null and void, and vacant possession was ordered for the Landlord.

The plaintiff, Jean-Marie Dixon, sought to conduct Rule 39.03 examinations of three witnesses (Registrar of HRTO, former ALOC president, and Crown counsel) in preparation for a jurisdiction motion brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (HMK).

HMK, the Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC), and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRTO) each moved to quash the respective summonses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's preliminary motion to strike portions of HMK's material.

The court granted all motions to quash, finding that the evidence sought was not relevant to the jurisdiction motion, was protected by statutory privilege (for HRTO Registrar) or solicitor-client privilege (for Crown counsel), or constituted an abuse of process as a fishing expedition for the underlying claim's merits.

Ontario appealed from the Court of Appeal's decision concerning the Robinson Treaties of 1850, which contained an Augmentation Clause providing for periodic increases to annual payments to the Anishinaabe of Lake Huron and Lake Superior contingent on economic conditions.

The annuities had been frozen at $4 per person since 1875.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that treaty interpretation is reviewable on a correctness standard, and adopted the fourth interpretation of the Augmentation Clause: the annuity is a single payment to the 'Chiefs and their Tribes', with mandatory increases to $4 per person where economic conditions permit, and discretionary increases beyond $4.

The Crown's discretion is not unfettered; it must be exercised diligently, honourably, liberally, and justly, consistently with the honour of the Crown.

No specific fiduciary duties arose in respect of the Augmentation Clause, but the duty of diligent implementation did.

The breach of treaty claims were not statute-barred.

The appeals were allowed in part, cross-appeals dismissed, and a declaration issued directing the Crown to engage in time-bound negotiations with the Superior plaintiffs regarding compensation for past breaches.

The Ontario government appealed a decision finding that the Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019 (Bill 124), which imposed a 1% cap on compensation increases for broader public sector employees, violated the right to freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the Act substantially interfered with the respondents' collective bargaining rights and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, as it was not minimally impairing and its deleterious effects outweighed its salutary effects.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to limit the declaration of invalidity to represented employees, as non-represented employees do not benefit from the same collective bargaining protections.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal and cross-appeal concerning a share purchase agreement with earn-out milestones.

The appellants, former shareholders, alleged breach of contract and the duty of good faith by the respondent's predecessor, Origin House, particularly regarding a delayed transaction closing date impacting milestone payments.

The respondent cross-appealed the lower court's finding of a breach of the duty of honest performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a finding of breach of the duty of honest performance does not create a legal presumption of loss without an evidentiary foundation of lost opportunity.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, finding a palpable and overriding error in the lower court's determination that the appellants were unaware of the delayed closing date, thereby setting aside the finding of a breach of the duty of honest performance.

The appellant law firm appealed a Superior Court order that set aside an Associate Judge's decision to reinstate their action, which had been dismissed for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly identified legal errors in the Associate Judge's application of the Reid v. Dow Corning Corp. test for reinstating actions dismissed for delay.

Specifically, the Associate Judge erred by treating periods of delay in isolation and by focusing on whether delay was "forgivable" rather than "sufficiently explained," despite evidence of egregious and unexplained delays.

The Court affirmed the motion judge's appropriate application of appellate jurisdiction and deference principles.

The applicants sought damages under a share purchase agreement for revenue and license milestone payments, and a working capital adjustment for tax credits.

The court interpreted the SPA provisions, including the "Unearned Milestone Payment Commitment" in the event of an Indirect Sale Transaction, and considered the purchaser's duty of good faith.

The court dismissed claims for milestone payments, finding the contract terms unambiguous and no actionable breach of good faith regarding impediments to earning milestones.

However, the court found a breach of the duty of honest performance for failing to disclose a delay in the closing date of the Indirect Sale Transaction, but no damages flowed from this breach as the applicants could not prove a lost opportunity.

The applicants were awarded the SR&ED tax credits without deduction for consultant fees.