Shantanu Roy

The Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) brought a motion seeking to dismiss the application of the corporate applicant, The Campaign for the Inclusion of People who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (the "Campaign"), for lack of standing, and to stay the application of the individual applicants, Ian Silver and Keith Golem, pending arbitration.

The court found that the Campaign was not a "complainant" under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act as it lacked a private right and reasonable expectation, and its representative authority was questionable.

The court also determined that the individual applicants' oppression claims were subject to arbitration clauses in the CHS by-laws.

Consequently, the Campaign's application was dismissed, and the Individual Applicants' application was stayed pending arbitration.

Costs were awarded to the CHS.

A worker fell approximately 22 feet from a roof while operating a motorized buggy to dump garbage during a re-roofing project.

The defendant corporation was charged with two counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure prescribed fall protection measures were carried out.

The defendant had installed a guardrail system and provided fall protection equipment, but the worker removed the guardrails without tying off.

The court found the actus reus proven beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding no clear process was in place for the alternative garbage disposal method at the time of the accident.

The Crown prosecuted an employer for two offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the fatal fall of an experienced welder from a temporary A-frame and plank platform at a height of approximately 6.5 feet.

Count 1 alleged failure to install guardrails at the open sides of a raised wood platform contrary to section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA.

Count 2 alleged failure to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect the worker from falling contrary to section 25(2)(a) of the OHSA.

The defendant did not advance a due diligence defence.

The court found that section 13 of the Industrial Establishments Regulation, which requires guardrails at open sides of raised surfaces, applies only to fixed premises attached to buildings, not to temporary mobile equipment.

Section 85 of the same regulation, which governs fall protection equipment, forms a complete code for this type of temporary platform work and does not require guardrails at heights below 3 metres.

The Crown improperly attempted to extend requirements beyond the applicable regulation through the general duty clause.

Both charges were dismissed.

Following earlier reasons granting relief in a complex commercial dispute, the successful applicants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $428,000.

The respondents argued that prior settlement offers justified limiting costs to partial indemnity and challenged the hourly rates used in calculating substantial indemnity costs.

The court held that the settlement offers did not meet the requirements of Rule 49 and were not genuine offers capable of affecting costs.

Given findings of deceitful and fraudulent conduct by the respondents and failure to comply with court‑ordered accounting, substantial indemnity costs were warranted.

Applying proportionality principles and reviewing the bill of costs, the court found the hours and rates reasonable and awarded the full amount claimed.

The applicants and respondents entered into joint venture agreements to invest in commercial real estate projects through jointly owned companies.

The applicants discovered that the respondents were commingling funds, failing to make their required equity contributions, and diverting the applicants' funds to their own personal benefit and to companies they solely owned.

The court found that the respondents breached their contractual and fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court imposed constructive trusts over several properties owned by the respondents, appointed a receiver over the respondents' assets, and cancelled the respondents' shares in the jointly owned companies where they had not contributed equity.

The court determined costs following the abandonment of a motion seeking to invalidate a mortgage registered against a Toronto property.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $12,000 after the applicants abandoned the motion.

The court held that the moving party was not entitled to recover costs incurred after a certain date because continuing to prepare materials was unreasonable while settlement discussions were ongoing and no hearing date had been set.

Considering the dockets and the proportionality of the work performed, the court found the claimed amount excessive.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs of $5,000.

A priority dispute arose between two mortgagees over lands on Queen Street East following a $400,000 advance intended to fund a principal payment under a vendor take-back mortgage.

Funds advanced by a second mortgagee were delivered by certified cheque to the first mortgagee but were subsequently returned to the borrower after arrangements between the borrower and the first mortgagee to defer the principal installment.

The second mortgagee argued that deposit of the cheque constituted acceptance of payment under the first mortgage and a re‑advance to the borrower, thereby affecting priority.

The court reviewed extensive email communications and evidence surrounding the transaction and raised credibility concerns about the first mortgagee’s knowledge of the source and purpose of the funds.

The court directed brief viva voce evidence and potential cross‑examination to resolve the factual dispute before determining priority.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for speeding.

The defendant applied to stay proceedings based on alleged Charter violations and sought to exclude evidence.

The court found no merit to the Charter claims.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as unreliable due to significant contradictions with audio and video evidence.

The court found the defendant understood the instructions but deliberately failed to comply with the breath sample demand due to his intoxicated state and defiant attitude.

The defendant, Reliable Wood Shavings Inc., was convicted of four offences under section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident on July 14, 2009, in which an employee died.

Counts 1, 3, and 4 were stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle, with conviction registered on count 2 only.

The employee, Glen Gallinger, suffocated after falling into a truck box while attempting to dislodge stuck wood shavings using an unsafe procedure prescribed by the defendant.

The court found the defendant guilty of failing to ensure safe work procedures and failing to take reasonable precautions for worker protection.

At sentencing, the Crown sought $140,000 while the defendant sought $40,000-$70,000.

The court imposed a fine of $115,000 with two years to pay, emphasizing general deterrence and the seriousness of workplace fatalities.

The defendant, Reliable Wood Shavings Inc., was charged with four offences under section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from the death of Glen Gallinger, an employee who was asphyxiated while attempting to dislodge sawdust from a silo at a customer's facility.

The court found that the defendant failed to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect its worker.

The defendant's prescribed procedure was unsafe and impractical, the written instructions were defective, and the defendant failed to address the inherently dangerous conditions at the worksite despite having knowledge of the hazards.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4, with count 1 stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The appellants, former officers of Coventree Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that they authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in Coventree's failure to disclose material changes in its business, contrary to section 75 of the Securities Act.

The Commission had found that changes to credit rating criteria and a subsequent disruption in the asset-backed commercial paper market constituted material changes requiring immediate disclosure.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, concluding that the Commission applied the correct legal tests, based its findings on sufficient evidence, and reasonably exercised its public interest jurisdiction in sanctioning the appellants.

The appeals were dismissed.

Three competing groups of plaintiffs and their respective counsel brought carriage motions seeking to represent a class of investors who suffered losses following a massive decline in the value of Sino-Forest Corporation's securities.

The court evaluated the competing actions based on factors including the definition of class membership, class period, theory of the case, causes of action, joinder of defendants, and prospects of certification.

The court stayed the Smith and Northwest actions and granted carriage to the Labourers action, finding its approach to the class definition, causes of action, and joinder of defendants to be the most cohesive and in the best interests of the class.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to three former employees, arguing they were guilty of wilful misconduct or neglect of duty.

The employer had hired a private investigator who observed the employees taking extended breaks, making personal phone calls, and watching television during working hours.

The Board found that while the employees engaged in misconduct and neglect of duty, their behaviour was not 'wilful' within the meaning of the Employment Standards Act.

The employees did not have a genuine understanding of the possible disciplinary consequences of their behaviour, largely due to the employer's failure to communicate rules or warnings effectively and the supervisor's inaction.

The application for review was dismissed, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be paid to the employees.

The applicant sought a review of two Orders to Pay totaling $73,421.93 under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Board ordered the applicant's total liability reduced to $22,500, with the Ministry of Labour directed to refund the balance of the funds held in trust to the applicant.

The Ministry was also directed to pay $1,200 to the individual claimant who appeared at the hearing.