Terrence O'Sullivan

Indigenous peoples from Ecuador obtained a US$9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation for environmental devastation caused by oil exploration.

After failing to enforce the judgment in the United States due to findings of fraud by the plaintiffs' counsel, they sought to enforce it in Ontario against Chevron Canada, a seventh-level subsidiary.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding that Chevron Canada's shares and assets were not exigible under the Execution Act and that the corporate veil should not be pierced.

The appellants appealed, arguing both that the Execution Act permitted seizure of Chevron Canada's assets and that the corporate veil should be pierced in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award, recognizing the litigation as public interest litigation.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the appellants and respondents settled the issue of costs.

The respondents sought an additional $5,000 in partial indemnity costs against the interveners.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs against the interveners, finding that the respondents had already recovered substantial costs from the appellants and incurred only nominal costs from the intervention.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment that found a shotgun buy-sell offer valid and enforceable despite minor non-compliance with the partnership agreement.

The offer contained two alternatives, one compliant and one non-compliant.

The Court of Appeal held that strict compliance with a shotgun buy-sell provision is required, but strict compliance is not perfect compliance.

The inclusion of a non-compliant alternative did not render the offer unenforceable because a compliant alternative was also included.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce the compliant alternative and award damages for the non-compliant elements.

The applicants, Shoppers Drug Mart and Katz Group, successfully challenged provincial regulations banning pharmacies from selling private label generic drugs at the Divisional Court.

The Minister of Health appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the regulations were intra vires the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act.

The Court held that the regulations validly imposed conditions on the drug supply chain to control prescription drug costs, rather than constituting an unauthorized prohibition, interference with commercial rights, or illegal discrimination.

The appellant and her sisters retained the respondent law firms for estate litigation.

By agreement, the law firms' accounts were paid by a corporation owned by the sisters.

The appellant later discovered the accounts contained substantial undisclosed premiums and sought to have them assessed.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding the appellant lacked standing as the corporation paid the bills.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was the true client and had standing.

Furthermore, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order an assessment because the solicitors failed to disclose the premiums or advise the clients of their right to an assessment.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement concerning the respondents' involvement in an 'overtrade' of Bioscrypt Inc. shares.

Paradigm Capital Inc., acting as an agent for a private placement, facilitated secondary market trades for a mutual fund manager who had been solicited for the private placement.

This resulted in shares being sold by persons with knowledge of an undisclosed material fact to persons without such knowledge.

The Commission found this conduct contrary to the public interest, reprimanded the respondents, imposed trading restrictions, and ordered settlement payments and costs.

The Municipality of Grey Highlands brought a motion to intervene as an added party in an appeal concerning a permit to take water and related official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The respondent supported the application, while the appellants opposed it.

The Chief Justice found that the Municipality had an immediate interest in the subject matter, having been a party before the Ontario Municipal Board, and that its addition would not delay or prejudice the appellants.

The motion to intervene was granted.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision interpreting a commercial lease provision regarding the reimbursement of realty taxes.

Following 1997 amendments to the Assessment Act, separate tax assessments for individual businesses in the shopping plaza were abolished, resulting in an 'en bloc' assessment for the entire property.

The landlord applied a formula in the lease designed for such an eventuality to allocate taxes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the clear language of the lease anticipated this scenario, and the formula was correctly applied since the tenant had not obtained a separate assessment.