Timothy Pinos

The applicants sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and extending the stay period.

The Plan aimed to restructure the Pacific Group's indebtedness by approximately US $5.1 billion and maintain it as a going concern.

A Shareholder Consortium proposed an alternative recapitalization and refinancing proposal and requested an adjournment, which was opposed by the applicants and other stakeholders.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the alternative proposal a "last minute effort to de-rail" the restructuring.

The court sanctioned the Plan, finding strict compliance with CCAA requirements, good faith, and that the Plan was fair and reasonable, representing the best alternative available.

The court also approved third-party releases and granted a stay of proceedings for non-applicant parties, as well as extending the stay period.

Following the defendant's successful motion for summary judgment, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendant sought approximately $331,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a favourable offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for $210,000.

The court found the matter complex but noted excessive hourly rates for junior counsel and insufficient delegation.

Costs were fixed at $240,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, The Power Limited Partnership's (PLP), claims of negligent misrepresentation, dishonest contract performance, and breach of a 2005 power purchase agreement (PPA).

The claims stemmed from the negotiation and execution of a 1999 PPA and a subsequent 2005 PPA, particularly concerning whether Order in Council (OIC) approval was required for the 1999 PPA and alleged concealment of its execution.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims.

It found no contractual obligation to support the bad faith claim, no deliberate dishonesty or negligence in misrepresentation, and that the 2005 PPA's entire agreement clause excluded prior representations.

Furthermore, the court determined that OIC approval was legally required for the 1999 PPA and that the claims were statute-barred by the applicable limitation periods.

The claims related to the 2005 PPA regarding occasional payment rates, capacity caps, and monthly targets were also dismissed based on clear contractual terms and lack of grounds for rectification.

The defendant brought a motion to stay a defamation action, arguing the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction or that another forum was more convenient.

The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, sued the defendant, a Quebec resident, over blog posts accessible in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test, finding that the tort of defamation crystallizes where the material is read.

Since the blog was accessed and republished via Twitter in Ontario, the tort was committed in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the defendant failed to show another forum was clearly more appropriate.

Following an eight‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s action was dismissed, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs after an earlier settlement offer to dismiss the claim without costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should remain on a partial indemnity scale and challenged both the proportionality of counsel time and several disbursements.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the magnitude of the claim, the complexity of the litigation, the importance of the issues to other generators, and the relative financial positions of the parties.

The judge concluded that the amounts sought were excessive and that the unsuccessful party should not bear the full scope of the defendant’s litigation resources.

Total costs were fixed at $250,000 inclusive of HST.

A small hydroelectric power producer sought a declaration and damages concerning the interpretation of a long‑term electricity purchase contract.

The plaintiff argued that payments after the tenth year of the agreement were required to escalate annually with inflation, while the defendant maintained that the contract fixed the tenth‑year rate as a floor and permitted annual rate determinations thereafter.

The court held the contract language was clear and contained no entitlement to an automatic inflation escalator.

Claims based on estoppel arising from the treatment of other generators were rejected.

Although the limitation period did not bar claims arising within two years before the action, the plaintiff ultimately failed to establish entitlement under the contract.

The provincial regulator applied for a declaration that a financial product marketed as a “Basic Line of Credit” constituted a payday loan under the Payday Loans Act, 2008.

The respondents argued that the product was a true line of credit and therefore outside the statutory definition and provincial jurisdiction.

The court applied the statutory direction to examine the real substance of the transaction rather than its outward form.

Despite structural features resembling a line of credit, the product functioned in practice as a series of short‑term advances tied to borrowers’ pay cycles and subject to high interest and brokerage fees.

The court held that the arrangement was substantively equivalent to payday lending and therefore subject to the Act and related regulatory regime.

The applicants sought removal of an arbitrator in an ongoing franchise dispute arbitration on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias.

The concern arose because the arbitrator, acting as counsel in another similar franchise case, had retained the same accounting expert whose report was filed by the respondents in the arbitration.

The court held that an objective and informed person could reasonably apprehend bias where the arbitrator had previously relied on the same expert in similar litigation and would be required to assess that expert’s credibility and qualifications in the arbitration.

Although no actual bias was proven, the professional relationship and prior reliance on the expert were sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court therefore exercised its authority under the Arbitration Act, 1991 to remove the arbitrator and directed the parties to attempt to agree on a replacement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of confidential financial and Key Performance Indicator data relating to seven non-party Lexus dealerships, which were in the possession of the defendant.

The plaintiffs argued the information was necessary to test the reliability of averages used by the defendant’s expert in calculating the plaintiffs’ alleged loss of profits following termination of a dealership agreement.

The court held that the individual dealer data was not producible under Rule 31.06(3) because the defendant’s expert had not received or relied on that underlying information.

Although the documents were relevant under Rule 30.02 to the issue of loss of profits, the court declined to order production after balancing proportionality and prejudice.

The court found that disclosure would cause significant prejudice to the non-party dealers, whose confidential financial information would be revealed to a direct competitor.

The plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to both the defendant and the non-party dealers.

Following a lengthy commercial dispute involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, misuse of confidential information, wrongful dismissal, and fraudulent conveyances, the court determined the allocation and scale of costs arising from two trials and related proceedings.

The litigation involved numerous parties and mixed results, with certain defendants fully successful and others partially liable.

The court concluded that the complexity of the litigation and the magnitude of the claimed costs warranted referral of most quantification issues to an assessment officer under Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded in several instances, including where unproven allegations of fraud or serious misconduct had been advanced, while partial indemnity costs applied to others depending on conduct and settlement offers.

The court also considered the appropriateness of Bullock and Sanderson orders in allocating responsibility among defendants.

Two related applications arose from a commercial arbitration concerning a Liquidity Payment obligation under a financing arrangement between a dairy company and a pension fund.

The moving party sought to set aside a final arbitral award under s. 46(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, alleging breaches of procedural fairness and arguing the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was unreasonable.

The court held the arbitration process was fair, the parties had adequate opportunity to present their cases, and the arbitrator’s interpretation of the Liquidity Payment Agreement was consistent with its plain language.

The application to set aside the award was dismissed.

The responding party’s application to enforce the arbitral award and supplementary costs award was granted, with interest fixed at 3% in accordance with the contract and applicable statutory rates.

The appeal concerned whether online music previews streamed before purchase are fair dealing for the purpose of research under the Copyright Act.

The Court held that research must be interpreted broadly and assessed from the user perspective, not only from the service provider perspective.

Applying the CCH framework, the Court found the previews fair in purpose, character, amount, alternatives, nature of the work, and market effect.

Because the previews were short, lower quality, temporary, and supported consumer selection without substituting for purchases, no additional royalties were payable for them.