Zohaib I. Maladwala

The appellants sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to report an alleged contravention of the Election Finances Act to the Attorney General, and his decision to register a third party during the 2007 provincial election.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the first decision was not subject to judicial review and the second was moot.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, concluding that the Chief Electoral Officer's actions did not determine legal rights and were analogous to a police officer refusing to lay a charge.

The Court also found no error in the Divisional Court's discretionary decision to dismiss the third-party registration issue on grounds of mootness.

In a certified class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices contrary to Part IV of the Competition Act and related torts, the representative plaintiffs sought court approval of a negotiated settlement with one defendant.

The settlement required the settling defendant to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec and to provide extensive cooperation in the ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The agreement also included a bar order preventing contribution and indemnity claims against the settling defendant while permitting discovery cooperation and proportional liability determinations at trial.

Applying established class action settlement approval principles, the court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The settlement approval order was granted.

The appellants appealed an order declining to stay the respondent's action.

The appellants argued that an arbitration clause in their agreement encompassed the issues raised in the litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no arguable arbitration provision in the contract at the relevant time, as the written contracts containing such clauses had expired and the appellants had previously communicated their desire not to arbitrate disputes.

The court also agreed with the motion judge that the claims did not fall within the alleged clause and that Ontario was the more convenient forum.