Source: http://litigate.com/OnTheDocket
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:37:46+00:00

Document:
The question of whether and when arbitration clauses will preclude a class proceeding is seemingly continually litigated. In some circumstances—such as in the consumer protection context—legislatures have clarified that certain claims cannot be subject to arbitration. In other cases, however, it is up to courts to craft the appropriate rules. The recent decision of TELUS Communications Inc v Wellman shows that the question of what rules are appropriate can attract significant disagreement. In a 5-4 split decision, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that valid arbitration clauses in contracts should generally be given effect and that persons with such contracts should not be included in class proceedings.
March 2019 has been a busy month for the Competition Bureau. On March 7, the Bureau released its updated Abuse of Dominance Enforcement Guidelines. Then, on March 13, the Bureau released its updated Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines (“IPEGs”). While neither new enforcement guideline reflects a fundamental shift in the Bureau’s approach to these issues, they provide new guidance and reflect important nuances in the Bureau’s consideration of these issues, particularly regarding abuse of dominance.
In Bisquip Leasing Corporation v Coco Paving Inc, Bisquip Leasing Corporation [“Bishop”] brought a motion for summary judgment against Coco Paving Inc. [“Coco”] for unpaid invoices on various projects. Coco asserted a counterclaim against Bishop arising out of “deficient work” and an incident in which a gas line was allegedly struck by Bishop during excavation.
In R v Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada (“Court”) convicted a high school teacher of voyeurism under section 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Jarvis used a concealed camera, inside a pen, to secretly video record female teenage students in common areas of a school. The video focused on their faces, upper bodies and breasts.
On December 28, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the case of Das v George Weston Limited. At 114 pages, the Court’s decision is thoroughly reasoned and substantive. It also deals with important issues that are significant to all class action practitioners. For those who don’t want to wade through the full sets of reasons—and there’s a lot there—here’s our summary of the key take-aways from the Court of Appeal’s decision.
The recent Toronto municipal election produced no shortage of last-minute court challenges and legal drama. One such dispute came between Bell Media and Faith Bazos (aka Faith Goldy)—the controversial mayoral candidate known for her far-right political views. The Court’s decision in Bazos v Bell Media Inc, released just six days before the election, addresses fundamental questions of jurisdiction between courts and administrative tribunals, as well as the circumstances in which the Court will exercise its discretion to grant injunctive relief in a matter which otherwise falls under a tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In Lavender v Miller Bernstein LLP (“Lavender”), the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an order granting summary judgment to a class of investors in a class action against the auditors of a defunct securities dealer. In doing so, the Court gave a detailed examination of the duty of care analysis as it applies in the wake of the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (“Livent”).
Product liability cases are routinely certified as class proceedings. Indeed, allegations that a product was negligently manufactured, or that a manufacturer failed to warn consumers of a particular risk, seem particularly amenable to resolution on a class-wide basis. However, not every such case is certified as a class proceeding. The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Richardson v Samsung Electronics Canada Inc is one example of a case that was not certified. More importantly, it shows what steps defendants can proactively take to avoid certification of class actions against them.
In Yip v HSBC Holdings plc (“Yip”) the Ontario Court of Appeal recently confirmed that “there is nothing unfair” in tying jurisdiction to litigate against a foreign defendant in a secondary market misrepresentation to the place where the securities were traded. The Court’s decision reflects the international standard that purchasers who use foreign exchanges should look to the relevant foreign court to litigate their claims and closes the door on creating a universal or default jurisdiction for secondary market claims under the Ontario Securities Act.
While class actions can be a useful tool for access to justice, there are limits to the types of claims that can be appropriately advanced through class proceedings. Indeed, the requirements for certification that appear in similar form in virtually every class action statute across Canada are meant to ensure that only those actions that can meaningfully proceed as class actions are in fact certified. Many cases, including certain types of pharmaceutical product liability claims, will simply be unsuitable for certification as a class action. The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Price v H Lundbeck A/S provides an example of such a case.
The law of contracts has been around for a very, very long time. Which is why it is important to take notice when a major appellate Court finds it necessary to restate the applicable principles, if only to settle the law concerning what may appear to be a narrow damages point.
When is the government entitled to act without the possibility of liability or subsequent second-guessing by the Courts? That was the very issue in a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal that upheld a lower court’s decision striking out a misfeasance in public office claim against the Ontario Government relating to the 2015 decision to privatize Hydro One.
Until recently, there was some uncertainty as to whether, in some circumstances, the decisions of private organizations might be subject to judicial review. For example, in West Toronto Football Club v Ontario Soccer Association, the Ontario Divisional Court held that some decisions of the private Ontario Soccer Association could be reviewed, as it exercises a compulsory power over anyone who wishes to play soccer in Ontario. Conversely, in Milberg v North York Hockey League, the Ontario Superior Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to judicially review the decision of the North York Hockey League, as the League was not exercising a statutory power or power of decision. Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified this area of administrative law in Highwood Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Judicial Committee) v Wall: in its unanimous decision, written by Justice Rowe, the Supreme Court held that “judicial review is reserved for state action”. Given the confusion in the lower courts, this is significant.
Given Quebec’s unique civil law regime, we seldom blog about legal developments in Quebec. However, sometimes decisions of Quebec courts have broader relevance outside of Quebec; this is often the case where Quebec courts rule on federalism issues. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Bell Canada v Aka-Trudell falls into that category. In that case, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to dismiss a class action against Bell Canada, rejected the argument that the Quebec Superior Court had no jurisdiction and that the matter ought to have instead been considered by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “CRTC”).
Settlement in multi-party litigation is to be encouraged, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sable Offshore Energy Inc v Ameron International Corp. One common mechanism for achieving settlements in multi-party litigation is through what is commonly known as a Pierringer agreement. A Pierringer agreement allows the settling defendants to be released from the lawsuit with the non-settling defendants left exposed to their proportionate share of liability. Despite their popularity, the impact of a Pierringer Agreement on the remaining defendants and the continuing litigation is not always clear.
In an age where individuals catalogue almost every aspect of their lives on some form of social media, the obligation to disclose all relevant documents in the context of civil litigation can seem both onerous and invasive. Courts have grappled with how disclosure obligations should be balanced with privacy rights.
The late 2017 decision of Justice Bielby in Nu Image v Seager highlights the difficulties faced by litigants seeking to restrain breaches of non-solicitation obligations. The irreparable harm limb of the RJR-MacDonald test remains the primary stumbling block for such motions.
Justice Perell Stays Proposed Class Proceeding against Uber, in Favour of Arbitration in the Netherlands - Heller v Uber Technologies Inc.
A long-standing issue in Canadian class actions law relates to the ability of parties to contract out of class actions and instead require that any disputes be submitted to arbitration. For class counsel and class members, such clauses are anathema, representing an attempt by sophisticated organizations to thwart class actions by requiring individual claims to proceed to arbitration. For businesses, such clauses have significant value; they can result in individual cases being resolved quickly and efficiently, without the complications and attendant costs of a class action.
Toll the death knell for class-based public interest privilege in competition proceedings?
The Competition Bureau relies heavily on voluntary cooperation from corporate Canada in order to enforce the Competition Act. Companies typically want assurances of confidentiality in order to cooperate with the Bureau. In recognition of the fact that companies are less likely to cooperate with the Competition Bureau if commercially sensitive information might be disclosed to third parties, the Competition Act provides a number of confidentiality protections for information acquired by the Bureau from third parties.
Voluntary Gift Cards: An Effective Strategy for Reducing Liability?
The recent admissions by supermarket chain Loblaws and a related group of companies that they engaged in conduct to fix the retail price of bread products have drawn significant public attention to price-fixing. And Loblaws’ response to those revelations of price-fixing—including giving consumers gift cards to be used at Loblaws—has also attracted significant interest, not just from the public, but also from businesses and the antitrust and class actions bar. For organizations that have engaged in misconduct looking to make a public response, Loblaws’ actions highlight both the potential benefits and risks of such voluntary remediation.
Under Canadian law, many provisions of the Competition Act can only be enforced by the Commissioner of Competition, and not by private parties. That has led to a dearth of jurisprudence, and certainty, regarding the interpretation of several provisions of the Competition Act. For that reason, both major businesses and industry groups will want to take careful note of the recent decision in Toronto Real Estate Board v Commissioner of Competition, where the Federal Court of Appeal gave further guidance as to when a party will be liable for abuse of dominance.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed a robust and plaintiff-friendly framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments against state supporters of terrorism under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, SC 2012 c 1 (the “JVTA”).
Justice Diamond’s decision in Singer v Nordstrong Equipment Limited provides valuable insight with respect to a terminated employee’s entitlement to a bonus payment during the reasonable notice period.
“Disappointed beneficiary” claims over life insurance proceeds have resulted in a complex body of case law combining elements of family law, trusts and insurance law.
Class actions are almost invariably complicated and expensive matters for businesses to deal with. Such class actions only become more complicated and expensive the bigger the classes are. Now, in Airia Brands Inc v Air Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal has given the green light to a class action that includes class members all around the world. This decision has significant implications for virtually all multinational businesses.
Compelling disclosure from the Competition Bureau for use in class actions: where are we now?
A recurring source of challenging legal problems in the price-fixing class actions, and in class actions more generally, is the issue of what information and evidence the Courts can compel government investigators to provide to private litigants for use in those class actions.
As regulatory investigations and litigation against corporate directors and officers become increasingly complex and extensive, insurance policies covering defence costs are all the more important. But how far does this coverage stretch? The recent decision of Liberty Silver v Liberty Insurance demonstrates the significant value these policies can provide in covering an early and proactive legal defence. The court rejected the Insurer’s narrow and technical interpretation of the insurance policy, and affirmed that legal costs incurred on behalf of senior officers and directors to respond to an Investigative Order by security regulators, even before any formal charges or accusations were laid, were covered.
Umbrella purchasers: Who are they, what do they want, and why are Courts (sometimes) certifying their claims?
While competition law specialists are familiar with the ongoing debate about umbrella purchaser claims, most Canadian lawyers could be forgiven for wondering what all the fuss is about umbrellas. Far from being individuals who rejected raincoats or ponchos in favour of a more traditional option, umbrella purchasers are now at the center of a heated debate in Canadian competition law.
In a recent pair of decisions in a solicitor-negligence action, Superior Court Justices Charney and Boswell confirmed that causation must be proved, not assumed – even on summary judgment motions.
On June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously granted AstraZeneca’s appeal in the long-awaited conclusion of the “Promise Doctrine” saga in AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc.
The past year has seen a flurry of interesting cases dealing with limitation periods. My colleagues and I have commented on them previously, including here and here. In Pennyfeather v Timminco Limited, the Court of Appeal for Ontario had the chance to weigh in on limitation periods under the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”).
Those wishing to bring a derivative action against a corporation should take note of the recent decision of Melnyk v Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, which provides further guidance on the test for being granted leave to bring a derivative action.
Does the director of a corporation owe a common law duty of care to that corporation’s security holders? The prevailing view has been that directors do not owe a duty of care to a corporation’s investors. However, the Ontario Superior Court in Poole v Phillips determined that the answer to this question is not clear enough to permit summary dismissals of such negligence claims. In Poole, the Court refused the Defendants’ motion for summary judgement, holding that a negligence claim brought by investors against a corporation’s directors disclosed a genuine issue requiring trial.
Using rules of thumb to generate estimates can be very useful in a variety of circumstances: for example, when the detailed information necessary to generate a precise answer is unavailable, or when it’s too difficult to analyze that detailed information. Lawyers use such rules of thumb in a number of circumstances, sometimes as an initial rough estimate, and sometimes to confirm the results of more detailed analysis.
The limits of applications: when are trials necessary in contractual disputes?
The Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure allow for certain matters to proceed by way of application, where a court can determine a discrete legal issue without the need for a full trial. Although an application can be an expeditious and cost-effective way to resolve a legal dispute, lawyers should be careful to ensure the issues in the case are the proper subject matter of an application. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Jackson v Solar Income Fund Inc is an important reminder of the limits of an application and the court’s unwillingness to make rulings on the basis of a limited evidentiary record.
To most people, a contract is a written agreement, typically signed by all parties, that sets out what different parties promise to do. But what happens that the written agreement is ambiguous? Courts have long held that evidence of the “factual matrix” of the contract—that is, the surrounding circumstances that inform the context in which a contract is created—is admissible in the interpretation of a contract. In its recent decision in Shewchuk v Blackmont Capital Inc, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence of subsequent conduct may also be admissible to interpret the agreement itself.
Hundreds of walnuts: Just annoying, or a nuisance?
Lawyers sometimes describe cases as being like a law school problem. Sometimes that means that the case raises difficult and complicated questions of law and fact that are nearly impossible to resolve. And sometimes it means that the case raises an obscure issue that seems more like a dispute between property owners in 19th century England. Gallant v Dugard squarely falls into the latter category.
A recent decision of the Divisional Court of Ontario has opened the door for a limited expansion of the discovery process under the Small Claims Court Rules (“Rules”). In Riddell v Apple Canada Inc, the Divisional Court upheld an order for inspection of property, made by a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court. The decision clarifies the Rules concerning discovery-type motions in the Small Claims Court and, in particular, confirms that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to make orders for pre-trial inspection of property.
Can an expert retain counsel to help prepare an opinion? Absolutely.
Is it improper for an opinion expert to hire his or her own lawyer to help prepare an opinion? That was the issue in the recent decision of Justice Perell in Wright v. Detour Gold. Justice Perell ruled that there was nothing improper in an expert retaining counsel to assist with the preparation of the opinion. The reasons are interesting in their conceptualization of the expert’s overriding duty to the Court, and for their interpretation of the recent Supreme Court of Canada case, White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., concerning the admissibility of opinion evidence.
A contractual provision which entitles a party to an excessive administrative charge on default may be considered an unenforceable penalty clause. Notwithstanding parties’ general freedom to negotiate their own remedies, Courts will find overly onerous damages provisions unenforceable. This was exactly the situation in RCAP Leasing Inc v Martin.
The Supreme Court of Canada is set to take up the important issue of the promise doctrine in patent law in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., presently scheduled for hearing on November 8, 2016.
An “active employment” clause in a bonus plan is not sufficient to extinguish an employee’s right to damages for lost bonuses in a wrongful dismissal action. This principle was affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the recent decision of Paquette v TeraGo Networks Inc.
Lawyers are continually reminded of the importance of pleadings—and, perhaps not surprisingly, of naming the correct corporate entity as defendant. So what if a party name is slightly off? What may look like a simple misnomer could in fact end your lawsuit. Justice Daley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed this issue in Anderson-Munroe v. Sheraton Hotels.
When is the government's failure to fulfill its statutory obligations a negligent act?
The interaction between a government’s statutory obligation and a common law duty of care can be a difficult area to navigate in negligence claims. In Williams v Toronto, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, on the facts of that case, the failure of the City of Toronto to fulfil a statutory obligation was civilly actionable by residents. In so doing, the Court provides further guidance as to what surrounding circumstances can push such failures into the realm of negligence.
Can losing a summary judgment motion hurt you at trial?
Over the 25 years that Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act has been in force, there have been fewer than 20 common issue trials. While class actions have the potential to remove access to justice barriers and improve judicial economy and efficiency, in Ontario their scope has been limited.
The limitation period for claims under s. 36 of the Competition Act is a longstanding question of Canadian competition law. The plain language of the statute suggests that such claims must be brought within two years of the anticompetitive conduct. But in Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v AU Optronics Corporation, the Ontario Court of Appeal has reached a conclusion that is much more generous to Plaintiffs, holding that such claims must be brought within two years of the Plaintiff discovering the anticompetitive conduct.
Apology Excepted: Does Ontario's Apology Act protect apologies offered abroad?
In Ontario, if a product harms consumers, a manufacturer may apologize without risk of the apology being used as an admission of liability in subsequent civil proceedings. Indeed, Ontario’s Apology Act expressly protects defendants from their apology being used in a determination of fault or liability.
Are substantial interlocutory costs awards an access to justice tool?
An interlocutory injunction is a valuable tool to maintain the status quo between parties, pending the resolution of litigation. Most disputes over whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted will depend on whether there will be “irreparable harm” if an injunction is not granted. However, as Guelph Taxi v Guelph Police Service shows, it is also critical that the party seeking an injunction give a meaningful undertaking to pay damages if the injunction is granted but the party is ultimately unsuccessful.
Many counsel have undoubtedly been asked by their clients what remedies are available in the face of an opposing party who opts not to comply with a court order. In Ontario, a party may bring a motion for a contempt order to enforce an order requiring a party to do an act (or abstain from doing an act) other than the payment of money. While certain litigants may be enticed by the option of seeking incarceration or additional fines from their adversary due to their non-compliance, the recent case of N-Krypt International Corp. v. Zillacomm Canada Inc. et. al. serves as a reminder that counsel should carefully consider whether a contempt proceeding truly advances their client’s best interest.
When will considerations of prejudice trump strict adherence to time requirements in the submission of expert reports?
At the risk of stating the obvious, gambling is unpredictable. Most people would agree that law is different. We think of law as being a predictable discipline governed by rules. Or at least we want to think that it is. A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal—one that fittingly involves gambling— reminds us, however that predictability is not the only principle that courts value.
Should a Silicon Valley Branding Agency author Canadian Patent Law Doctrine?
Misfeasance in public office is a difficult claim to prove. A successful action requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that a public officer engaged in deliberate misconduct knowing that such misconduct was likely to cause harm to the plaintiff. In many cases, evidence of the requisite mental element is lacking.
When does an Employer's Breach of Contract Make a Non-Competition Clause Unenforceable?
Non-competition clauses in employment agreements pose challenges for employers who seek to enforce them. Non-competes have to be reasonable in scope at the time they are agreed to; a perpetual or geographically unlimited non-compete covering a broad range of competitors is almost certain to be unenforceable. However, as the recent B.C. Supreme Court decision in P.R.I.S.M. v. Kramchynski highlights, an employer seeking to rely on a non-compete against a former employee must also uphold their obligations under their contract with that employee.
A recent Federal Court decision has given new meaning to the notion of criminalizing marijuana. The case of Trans-High Corporation v Hightimes Smokeshop and Gifts Inc (2015 FC 1104) is perhaps one of the first times marijuana related trade-mark infringement has landed someone in jail.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal makes the question of who you trust with your car more difficult to answer.
When the parties to an action settle their dispute but leave costs up to the court, can costs be assessed in an amount greater than the settlement payment? Parties may try, but as always, proportionality governs.
In two recent cases, the Federal Court of Appeal provided "certain observations" on whether "the time has come to reconsider the view that appellate courts are to review patent construction on the basis of correctness."
The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc. v. Aamazing Technologies Inc., 2015 ONCA 465, recently affirmed that exceptions to the "fresh start" rule in bankruptcy must be construed narrowly and applied only in clear cases. The Court grounded its ruling in what it characterized as the "twin" goals of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act: (1) the equitable distribution of the bankrupt's assets among the bankrupt estate's creditors; and (2) the financial rehabilitation of insolvent individuals (para. 1).
In a judicial review, the Federal Court upheld the decision of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (Commissioner) not to investigate a complaint under whistle blower legislation – the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005 c. 46 (Act) -- on the grounds of a 6-year delay.
In industrial design, it pays to have it all. In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that while a purely functional design does not attract protection (as per section 5.1(a) of the Industrial Design Act), an industrial design that has a functional aspect can still be enforced if the design is also visually appealing.
In the recent decision of Imperial Manufacturing Group Inc. v. Decor Grates Incorporated, 2015 FCA 100, the Federal Court of Appeal used an appeal of a particulars motion in an industrial designs case to eliminate the prior distinction between the standard of review of discretionary or interlocutory orders and all other appeals from the Federal Court.
Questions of jurisdiction and conflict of laws are complicated at the best of times, let alone in the context of estate litigation.
In a rare and surprising turn of events, a full panel of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed Sanofi-Aventis' appeal of its "Section 8" liability at the conclusion of oral argument on April 20. (Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., 2015 SCC 20).
The political blogosphere is rude, aggressive and insulting, but the ruling in Baglow v. Smith (2015 ONSC 1175) suggests that it is nonetheless a tough forum in which to make out a case of defamation.
When is a case too complex for a jury?
Is an expansion of banks' duties to non-customers on the horizon?
Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's 2010 decision in Dynasty Furniture Manufacturing Ltd. v. Toronto Dominion Bank (2010 ONCA 514), many legal observers believed that the court had closed the door on a bank's liability for negligence in the absence of actual knowledge of fraudulent activities conducted through an account of its customer.
Score one for science, zero for journalistic integrity and a point for an interesting advance in the law of defamation.
A change in law, but not in fact?
Law and fact, deference and correctness seem no less muddled than ever, as judges begin to interpret the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva Capital Corp v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53. In Sattva Capital, the Court held that pure contractual interpretation matters generally raise issues of mixed fact and law requiring deference, unless it is possible to clearly identify extricable issues of law.
Defendants in consumer class actions should be on notice, following two recent decisions that used consumer protection legislation as a basis to award damages.
Lazy litigants beware: not only is your (in)action subject to a dismissal motion under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, it is also subject to the court's inherent jurisdiction.
Is Paper What Ails the Justice System?
Call it what you want: unethical tactics, improper, vexatious, or Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) – the term coined by one Alberta judge – but actions engineered to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals will be rebuked for what they are: a shake down.
Relief from campaign finance rules may not be hard to come by if the wrongdoing was done in good faith. In Obina v. City of Ottawa, aspiring city councillor Lilly Obina was granted relief from penalty, despite contravening rules under the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) regarding the filing of financial statements for her 2010 campaign.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.