William R. MacLarkey

In CCAA proceedings involving a large telecommunications company, the applicants sought authorization to cease environmental remediation work at several contaminated sites and to have regulatory remediation orders treated as claims within the insolvency process.

The provincial environmental regulator argued that its orders imposed regulatory performance obligations rather than monetary claims and therefore should not be stayed by the insolvency proceedings.

The court held that where a debtor is no longer operating and compliance with regulatory orders necessarily requires the expenditure of funds, such orders are in substance financial obligations.

The court concluded that environmental remediation orders relating to pre‑filing contamination constituted claims subject to the CCAA claims process and were stayed by the existing stay of proceedings.

The applicants were authorized to cease remediation activities and environmental claims were directed to be resolved through the established claims procedure.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring production of numerous documents relating to police conduct during a blockade and the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before granting mining rights.

The moving parties argued the motion judge failed to give adequate reasons, misapplied relevance and proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and improperly assumed possession of certain documents.

The court held that the motion judge provided sufficient reasons and properly applied the relevance and proportionality requirements for documentary production.

The requested materials, including police notes and records related to consultation obligations, were highly relevant to claims involving access to property and alleged Crown negligence.

The defendants failed to establish good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and leave to appeal was refused.

The claimant owned a truck stop on Highway 17.

The Province constructed a new section of Highway 417 for public safety reasons, which rerouted traffic and altered access to the claimant's property.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded damages, finding the interference constituted an actionable nuisance and resulted from the construction, not the use, of the highway.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the interference was substantial, the Board erred in its reasonableness analysis by failing to properly balance the competing interests, particularly the significant public utility of the new highway.

The Court of Appeal concluded the interference was not unreasonable, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the claimant's claim for injurious affection.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a claim to Casino Rama profits, the successful respondents sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale, citing the appellant's conduct and shifting theories.

The Court of Appeal declined to award elevated costs, finding the appellant's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $250,000 for the Chiefs of Ontario and OFNLP, and $75,000 for Ontario.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding a harvest procedure on a game farm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the harvest procedure was simply a hunt by another name.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $9,000.

The applicant sought to set aside his expulsion from the YMCA, arguing he was denied natural justice because he was not given a hearing before being expelled for alleged public indecency in the men's shower.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the YMCA's by-laws permitted expulsion without a hearing when a member's conduct breached the law.

The court held that the YMCA acted in good faith, followed its own rules, and afforded the applicant adequate procedural fairness given the nature of the voluntary association and the prior warnings he had received.