Tracy L. Wynne

The appellants, holding unsecured crossover bonds, appealed a CCAA judge's decision that the common law 'interest stops' rule applies in CCAA proceedings, preventing them from claiming post-filing interest above their principal debt and pre-petition interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the 'interest stops' rule is a fundamental tenet of insolvency law that applies to CCAA proceedings to ensure fair treatment of creditors and orderly administration.

The Court clarified that while creditors cannot legally claim post-filing interest, the rule does not preclude a negotiated CCAA plan from providing for such payments.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

The deceased promised to bequeath his farm and cottage to his common-law wife's grandsons in exchange for their unpaid labour.

He later married the appellant, who claimed dependant's relief against the estate.

The trial judge ordered the properties conveyed to the grandsons and awarded the widow support based on an inflated estate value, refusing to consolidate the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, holding that the promise was to bequeath, not convey, meaning the properties remained in the estate and were subject to the widow's dependant's relief claim under s. 71 of the Succession Law Reform Act to the extent their value exceeded the grandsons' consideration.

The matter was remitted for a new trial on the dependant's relief claim.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to hold opposing counsel personally liable for litigation costs allegedly caused by misconduct, including advancing false evidence, suppressing documents, and encouraging clients to give perjured testimony.

The court conducted a detailed review of the history of the litigation and the governing principles for imposing personal cost liability on counsel.

While the court found that counsel had made some serious litigation errors, including failing to properly list privileged documents in an affidavit of documents and mishandling document preservation, it held that the conduct did not cause costs to be incurred without reasonable cause within the meaning of Rule 57.07.

The court emphasized the adversarial nature of civil litigation, the extreme caution required before awarding costs personally against lawyers, and the availability of procedural remedies to address discovery issues.

The motion was dismissed.

On a Commercial List motion, the moving party sought an order under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a former solicitor for the opposing parties to personally pay costs of the action on a substantial indemnity basis.

The hearing was scheduled to proceed but the respondent sought an adjournment due to medical issues following recent cardiovascular surgery.

The court granted the adjournment but addressed the issue of costs thrown away resulting from the late notice of the health issue.

The court held that parties must promptly communicate medical conditions that may affect scheduled hearings to reduce unnecessary costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 were ordered payable by the respondent to compensate the moving party for preparation costs rendered useless by the last‑minute adjournment.

The respondent brought a motion under rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order that the appellant, a non-party lawyer, personally pay the costs of the litigation.

The appellant moved to strike the motion, arguing it was barred by the two-year limitation period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and was an abuse of process.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a motion within an existing action is not a 'proceeding' for the purposes of s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, and found no evidence to support the abuse of process claim.

The respondent settled litigation with his former business partner and subsequently brought a motion under Rule 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking costs personally against the partner's former lawyer.

The lawyer brought a motion to strike the costs motion, arguing it was barred by the two-year limitation period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and was an abuse of process.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to strike.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that a motion within an existing action is not a 'proceeding' under s. 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the abuse of process arguments were matters to be determined on the merits of the Rule 57.07 motion.

The appellant appealed an order striking their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the plea of fraudulent misrepresentation was untenable, the factual allegations were capable of establishing an absence of good faith.

The court held that the novel cause of action in negligence was not plain and obvious to fail, and permitted it to proceed.

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.

The appellants sued two dental regulatory Colleges in negligence, misfeasance of public office, and breach of Charter rights, alleging the Colleges failed to implement adequate standards to prevent temporomandibular joint injuries during dental hygiene treatments.

The motions judge struck the claims against the Colleges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence to hold that the Colleges' statutory duty is to the public as a whole, not to individual patients, and therefore they owe no private law duty of care to the appellants.