Sonja Pavic

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

Porter Airlines and Nieuport Aviation disputed the calculation of terminal fees at Billy Bishop Airport under a Licence Agreement.

Porter argued it could pay fees based on a variable daily slot allocation and claimed force majeure due to the COVID-19 pandemic to excuse non-payment.

Nieuport argued fees were based on a fixed, recurring number of daily slots and counterclaimed for unpaid fees.

The court held that the Licence Agreement required payment based on a fixed number of recurring daily slots.

The court also found that the COVID-19 pandemic did not trigger the force majeure clause to excuse Porter's payment obligations.

Porter was ordered to pay over $131 million in damages for unpaid terminal fees, while Nieuport's recourse under a guarantee was limited to specified aircraft.

The applicant, Joshua Dean Nelson, sought to set aside an arbitral award rendered under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement against the Government of the United Mexican States.

The application was brought under Article 34(2)(a)(ii) of the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, alleging denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Specifically, the applicant claimed the award was based on an unpleaded theory and that the tribunal ignored expert evidence regarding the existence of interconnection rights and the effect of Mexican regulatory decisions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal's decision was based on issues that were pleaded, argued, and subject to cross-examination, and that the tribunal adequately considered the expert evidence, even if not explicitly naming the experts.

The Plaintiff sought costs for a motion to compel discovery answers, which was ultimately resolved through case management rather than judicial determination.

Despite the settlement, the court found exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award due to the Defendants' conduct in unnecessarily prolonging the motion and delaying answers to refusals.

The court also affirmed the principle that costs are available where counsel acts pro bono.

The Plaintiff was awarded $5,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, Alex M. Bodnarchuk, brought a consent motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to obtain leave to proceed with a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Ontario Securities Act against Guestlogix Inc., Brett Proud, and Patrick Leung.

The action alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding credit facilities and financial covenants.

The parties reached a settlement of $1,275,000.

The court granted leave, finding the action was brought in good faith and had a reasonable possibility of success for settlement purposes.

The court also certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, finding all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The order approved the settlement notices and procedures for opt-outs and objections, and set a date for the settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking indemnification from the defendants for a percentage of taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The parties had previously entered into a Share Put Agreement containing an indemnity clause.

The defendants argued they were protected by a prior representation and warranty regarding the future use of tax pools, and sought a set-off.

The court found that the plaintiff did not guarantee the future use of the tax pools against CRA reassessment, and that any such prior representations were superseded by an entire agreement clause.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, enforcing the indemnity, and declined to stay execution of the judgment pending the CRA appeal.

The applicant, GuestLogix Inc., sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a Monitor, and authorization for super-priority charges.

The court found the applicant to be an insolvent debtor company with over $5 million in unsecured liabilities, making it eligible for CCAA protection.

The court granted the stay and the requested Administration and Directors' Charges.

However, due to a potential conflict of interest raised by a secured creditor, the court declined to appoint the proposed Monitor, Deloitte Restructuring Inc., and instead appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

In a national class action alleging price fixing in the Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) market, the representative plaintiff sought approval of multiple settlement agreements with several defendant manufacturers under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed settlements totalled $3,050,000 and followed earlier settlements with other defendants.

The court considered whether the agreements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and reviewed the proposed distribution protocol, administration protocol, claims administrator appointment, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honorarium.

The court approved the settlements, associated distribution and administration plans, class counsel fees and disbursements, and dismissed the remaining claim against the final defendant.

The court accepted the settlements as falling within the zone of reasonableness and consistent with the interests of the class.