Stephanie Shannon Clark

The appellants sought a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration under s. 15 of the Arbitration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 55, after the court-appointed receiver commenced a civil claim to collect amounts allegedly owed under contracts containing mandatory arbitration clauses.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a court-appointed receiver may be a party to a debtor's pre-receivership arbitration agreement, but that an arbitration agreement may be found inoperative under s. 15(2) where enforcing it would compromise the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The majority applied a two-part framework: the technical prerequisites for a mandatory stay were met, but the arbitration agreements were inoperative because the multiple overlapping arbitral proceedings contemplated would compromise the objectives of the BIA.

The concurring judges agreed on the result but reasoned that the Receivership Order itself authorized the receiver to sue in court and thereby disclaim the arbitration agreements.

Apotex sought damages for breach of contract and negligence against MDS for deficient bioequivalence studies that the FDA ultimately rejected.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The trial judge found the action was timely, determining that discovery occurred on December 11, 2006, when Apotex learned the FDA would not accept the MDS studies.

The Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion but on different grounds, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until December 11, 2006, based on when Apotex knew that the breach had caused injury, loss or damage.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on breach of contract, mitigation, and damages.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant landlord from terminating a commercial lease and taking possession of the premises, and for a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew.

The landlord had refused to renew the lease, alleging the tenant failed to duly and regularly pay percentage rent based on an audit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant failed to meet the threshold of showing a serious issue to be tried or a strong prima facie case that it had satisfied the preconditions for renewal, as the evidence showed a history of late rent payments and no waiver by the landlord.

Apotex brought an action against MDS (now Nordion) for breach of contract and negligence arising from bioequivalence studies conducted by MDS for Apotex's generic drug applications to the FDA.

The FDA refused to accept the studies due to MDS's failure to comply with U.S. regulatory requirements, forcing Apotex to repeat or certify the studies and delaying the launch of its drugs.

The court found MDS breached the Master Laboratory Services Agreement and its duty of care.

The court rejected MDS's defences regarding standing and the limitation period.

Apotex was awarded over $11.3 million in damages for the costs of repeating/certifying the studies and for lost profits due to the delayed market entry.

A secondary market misrepresentation class action was brought against a coal mining company and its former CFOs and directors following the company's restatement of financial statements for 2010-2012.

The motion judge granted leave to proceed against the company but denied leave against the individual defendants, finding they had established a reasonable investigation defence.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the leave motion as a mini-trial and failing to consider significant credibility issues and gaps in the evidentiary record.

The court found that the defendants' position—that they should evade liability because they previously made material misrepresentations in the restatement but are now telling the truth—was inconsistent with fundamental securities regulation principles requiring scrupulous continuous disclosure.