William V. Sasso

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

The court considered costs submissions following the successful summary judgment motion of the defendants, Nancy Flagler-Wilburn and F.R. Jordan & Associates Appraisal and Management Services (1977) Inc. The plaintiff, Dennis Paul Rivest, accepted that costs were owed but argued for a significant reduction due to curative steps required by the defendants' failure to plead witness immunity.

The court found some merit in the plaintiff’s argument but rejected the 40% reduction estimate as unfounded.

Ultimately, the court fixed costs at $40,945.80, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and H.S.T., to be paid by the plaintiff within 30 days.

This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.

Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.

RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.

The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.

Following a decision determining that a foster child was not entitled to share in an intestate estate, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant estate trustee was awarded full indemnity costs payable from the estate, as the application was necessary for the proper administration of the estate.

The successful respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs payable by the unsuccessful respondent, with the balance of his full indemnity costs payable by the estate, as the litigation between the respondents was adversarial and did not engage public policy considerations.

The applicant trustee sought directions on the distribution of an intestate estate.

The deceased died without a spouse, issue, or parents, leaving his estate to be distributed among his siblings.

The respondent, a former foster child of the deceased's adoptive parents, claimed entitlement to share in the estate as a 'sister'.

The court held that under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Succession Law Reform Act, a foster child who was never legally adopted does not meet the definition of a 'child' or 'sister' for the purposes of intestate succession.

The foster child was therefore excluded from sharing in the estate.

The appellant sought to enforce an alleged agreement, contained in an email exchange, for the acquisition of shares in a family corporation and a declaration that the respondent had consented to the sale of shares owned by one of her brothers.

The motion judge found no binding agreement, determining that essential terms regarding the transaction's structure, method of payment, and dividend payments were not settled.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, affirming that the structure and method of payment, which directly impacted the net-of-tax amount, and the precise terms of dividend payments were essential terms that had not been agreed upon.

This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.

Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.

The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.

Loukia Georgiou sought leave to appeal a lower court's dismissal of her application for relief from forfeiture of $9.3 million, which a U.S. court had ordered forfeited as proceeds of crime belonging to her son.

The funds were restrained in Canada under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The motion judge determined that the proposed appeal required leave under s. 35 of the Act, not an appeal as of right under the Criminal Code, and found that the grounds raised by the applicant did not constitute questions of law alone justifying leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Trustee applied for an order approving the sale of estate farmland and a vesting order.

The respondent beneficiaries opposed the sale and brought a counter-application to remove the trustee.

The court found the trustee breached his fiduciary duties by failing to confer with the designated beneficiary before selling the property, and by pre-taking compensation and registering a mortgage against the property without authorization.

The court dismissed the trustee's application for a vesting order, finding he did not come to court with clean hands, and granted the counter-application to remove and replace him as trustee.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking lost rental revenue from the defendants for breaching a commercial lease by failing to pay rent and timely reinstate a demising wall.

The defendants counterclaimed for overpayment of rent and argued the plaintiff breached an oral agreement for lease assignment and failed to mitigate damages.

The court found no binding oral agreement for lease assignment and that the defendants breached their obligation to reinstate the wall.

However, the plaintiff also failed to adequately mitigate damages.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff for five months' lost rent and allowed the defendants' counterclaim for overpaid rent.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 34.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the responding parties to produce documents in advance of cross-examinations on affidavits sworn in support of the responding parties' summary judgment motions.

The responding parties argued the motion was prohibited under Rule 48.04(1) because the action had been set down for trial, and that the requests were disproportionate.

The court held that Rule 48.04(1) did not bar the motion and the moving party had not waived the right to documentary discovery.

However, because the responding parties had never served affidavits of documents, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice, directing the responding parties to first serve affidavits of documents so that relevance and proportionality could be properly assessed.

The appellant, widow of a deceased party to a right of first refusal agreement, sought to exercise the right to purchase property on the same terms as an offer made to a third party.

The motion judge found that the right of first refusal was limited to the original parties to the agreement and did not extend to family members.

The appellant failed to establish her authority to act on behalf of the deceased's estate and based her claim on her status as a family member.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no ambiguity in the agreement and no legal error in the interpretation.

Minority shareholders in a family-owned company appealed a trial judgment dismissing their oppression and conspiracy claims.

The appellants alleged that the director diverted property interests to his benefit through a series of transactions and that respondents conspired to allow the company to default on a mortgage so that a controlled company could acquire the property.

The trial judge rejected all claims, finding that the appellants' conduct was unclean and that the director's actions were justified to protect the company's interests.

The appellants failed to establish reasonable expectations or damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, representative counsel for pharmacist franchisees brought a motion for approval of their fees and disbursements totaling approximately $1.95 million.

The Pharmacy Franchisee Association of Canada and several individual pharmacists objected to the fees on various grounds, including the allocation of fees and the overall amount.

The court dismissed the objections, finding that the fees were properly allocated based on when claims were resolved and that the total amount was fair and reasonable given the complexity of the matter, the time expended, and the results achieved.

The fee request was approved in full.

Centoco Holdings Limited and KS Centoco Ltd. ("Centoco") brought two motions.

The first sought to compel Magna International Inc. ("Magna") to produce its CEO, Donald Walker, for examination for discovery in a winding-up action, arguing he was instrumental in a key business decision.

The second motion sought to compel Magna to answer refused questions and produce documents related to its airbag business and "Directed Source Mark-Ups" in the main action, and questions regarding additional documents produced post-discovery.

The court granted both motions, finding Centoco had a prima facie right to examine Walker and that the requested information on the airbag business and additional documents was relevant.

The court directed counsel to narrow the scope of document production to avoid trial adjournment and adjourned the request for a further affidavit of documents.

The defendant, owner of the Ambassador Bridge, brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a nuisance action commenced by property owners in Old Sandwich Town.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendant unlawfully allowed properties it purchased to deteriorate, reducing property values.

The defendant argued that widespread negative, defamatory, and accusatory pre-trial publicity in Windsor regarding its conduct and motives made it impossible to find an impartial jury.

The court agreed, finding a real danger that the cumulative effect of over a decade of negative commentary could predispose jurors against the defendant.

The motion was granted and the jury notice was struck.

This protracted litigation involved a family dispute over a commercial property, with plaintiffs (minority shareholders and creditors) alleging oppression and conspiracy against defendants (majority shareholders, directors, and related entities).

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants engaged in self-dealing and unlawful acts to deprive them of their beneficial ownership and profits.

The court dismissed both the oppression and conspiracy claims, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their reasonable expectations were violated or that an unlawful conspiracy occurred.

The court noted the plaintiffs' own conduct demonstrated a lack of regard for the corporation's welfare and a failure to protect their interests.

A counterclaim by one of the defendants was also dismissed.

The defendant, TK Holdings Inc., moved to strike paragraphs from the statements of claim in five proposed products liability class actions.

The impugned paragraphs contained apologies made by Takata executives in Japan and the District of Columbia, which the defendant argued were inadmissible under Ontario's Apology Act, 2009.

The plaintiffs contended that the Act did not apply extraterritorially and that a contextual analysis was required to distinguish apologies from admissible admissions.

The court granted the motion, holding that pleading evidence, such as apologies or admissions, rather than material facts, was improper under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, the court determined that the Apology Act, being a statute about the law of evidence (procedural law), applied as the law of the forum, rendering evidence of apologies inadmissible for determining fault or liability.

The defendants, three major tobacco manufacturers, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs, tobacco growers, brought class actions alleging the defendants breached agreements by paying lower export prices for tobacco that was subsequently smuggled back into Canada.

The defendants argued the claims were statute-barred as the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the claims more than six years prior.

The motion judge found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the plaintiffs discovered the defendants' complicity in the smuggling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the defendants' involvement in smuggling was an essential element of the claim and that its discoverability required a trial.