COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Thurston (Re), 2015 ONCA 351

DATE: 20150519

DOCKET: C59296

Doherty, Cronk and LaForme JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF:
Stephen Thurston

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE
CODE

Anita Szigeti, for the appellant

Suzan E. Fraser and Kelley J. Bryan, for the intervener,
    Mental Health Legal Committee

Michele Warner, for the respondent, Person in Charge of
    the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Grace Choi, for the respondent, Attorney General for
    Ontario

Heard: February 9, 2015

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review
    Board, dated August 27, 2014.

Cronk J.A.:

A.      Introduction

[1]

By disposition dated August 27, 2014, the Ontario Review Board ordered
    the appellant, Stephen Thurston, detained on the Secure Forensic Unit of the
    Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto.  The disposition
    proceeded on a joint submission.  Under the agreed terms of the disposition, the
    person in charge of the hospital may permit Thurston escorted, accompanied or
    indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, but no access to the
    community except for necessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes.

[2]

In the normal course, and subject to the early review provisions set out
    in the
Criminal Code
, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, Thurstons disposition
    would remain in effect for 12 months, until his next statutorily mandated annual
    review hearing.  However, before the Board, the parties also jointly sought an
    order that Thurstons next review hearing be held in six, rather than twelve,
    months.

[3]

The Board rejected the parties joint request for an early review
    hearing.  Instead, it ruled that Thurstons disposition remain operative until
    a new Disposition of the [Board] is issued.  Thurston appeals against this
    ruling.

[4]

The only issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in declining to pre-schedule
    a six-month review hearing.  Thurston argues that, in denying this part of the parties
    joint submission, the Board breached natural justice and its duty of procedural
    fairness.  He submits, further, that the Board misapprehended the nature of the
    joint submission and the evidence supporting the request for an early review
    hearing.  As a consequence, Thurston says, the Boards ruling on this issue
    occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

[5]

For the reasons that follow, I conclude that hearing fairness was not
    compromised in this case and that the Boards denial of an early, six-month review
    hearing was reasonable on the evidentiary record before it.

[6]

Accordingly, I would dismiss the appeal.

B.      Background In Brief

[7]

Thurston is 39 years of age.  He has a 20-year history of various
    psychiatric difficulties, which have led over the years to numerous hospital
    admissions and emergency visits and frequent interactions with the police.

[8]

On June 13, 2005, Thurston was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on
    account of mental disorder on one count of sexual assault, two counts of resist
    arrest and one count of escape lawful custody, all contrary to the
Criminal
    Code
.  He has remained under the jurisdiction of the Board since 2005.

[9]

Thurstons current diagnoses are schizophrenia, substance dependence
    disorders (cocaine and cannabis), and antisocial personality traits.

[10]

Thurston
    has been free from active symptoms of psychosis for many years and has complied
    with his medication regime while detained.  However, his substance abuse
    problems have precipitated repeated absences without leave (AWOLs) from CAMH by
    Thurston, as well as theft and other property offences in order to fund his use
    of cocaine.

[11]

By
    a disposition dated February 25, 2014, Thurston was ordered detained on the
    General Forensic Unit at CAMH, with privileges that included, with the
    permission of the person in charge of the hospital, indirectly supervised
    community passes for up to 10 hours a day, indirectly supervised 72-hour passes
    to visit his mother in Cobourg, Ontario, and community living in accommodations
    approved by the hospital.

[12]

In
    2014, Thurston twice went AWOL.  First, in early February 2014, shortly before
    his scheduled annual Board review, Thurston left CAMH without permission and
    engaged in the use of cocaine.  That same month, CAMH learned that he had fraudulently
    obtained $2,500 in community living benefits from the Ontario Disability
    Support Program, having claimed that he was no longer living at CAMH.

[13]

Some
    months later, on June 2, 2014, Thurston again went AWOL.  On this occasion, he
    had been entrusted with another patients bank card for the purpose of withdrawing
    a small amount of money.  Instead, Thurston withdrew all the funds (about $400)
    from the account and remained absent from CAMH for nearly 48 hours.  During his
    absence, he repeatedly used cocaine and did not take his medication.  He was
    apprehended and returned to CAMH.  On his return, he refused to provide a urine
    sample, discuss his absence, or engage with his attending psychiatrist.

[14]

On
    June 12, 2014, as a result of the incidents described above and other concerns,
    CAMH requested an early Board review of Thurstons February 2014 disposition.
    The accelerated review hearing was held on August 20, 2014.

C.      Board Hearing

[15]

It
    was undisputed at the August 2014 hearing that Thurston continued to pose a
    significant threat to the safety of the public and, consequently, that his
    continued detention at CAMH was required.  The only issues for determination
    were the appropriate place and duration of, and the fit conditions to attach to,
    his detention.

[16]

CAMH,
    supported by the Crown and Thurston himself, recommended that Thurstons place
    of detention be changed from the General Forensic Unit (minimum security) to
    the Secure Forensic Unit (medium security) at the hospital, with unsupervised hospital
    and grounds privileges, but with no access to the community.  The parties also jointly
    urged the Board to pre-schedule a review of the proposed disposition after
    six-months, ahead of the 12-month review required under s. 672.81(1) of the
Criminal
    Code
.

[17]

CAMH
    argued that Thurstons transfer to the Secure Forensic Unit was necessary to
    prevent further AWOLs, to facilitate his compliance with various hospital rules
    and to afford Thurston the opportunity to participate in the programming
    available on the secure unit.  Thurston did not challenge these assertions.

[18]

The
    parties sought to justify the request for a six-month review on several bases.  CAMH,
    supported by Thurston, argued that a six-month review would motivate Thurston
    to make effective use of his time on the Secure Forensic Unit and to address
    his substance abuse issues; that, without this motivation, Thurston could lose
    hope and his condition could deteriorate; and that there was a realistic
    possibility that Thurston could be ready for a transfer back to the General
    Forensic Unit within six months if he accomplished the goals set for him by his
    treatment team.

[19]

As
    a result of the joint submission, the hearing before the Board was brief.  Thurstons
    treating psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Pearce, testified and CAMH filed two hospital
    reports regarding Thurstons conduct and progress while detained at CAMH.

[20]

The
    evidence established that Thurston had engaged in a litany of problematic
    behaviours in the months preceding the August hearing.  He had left the
    hospital on two occasions without permission, during which he used cocaine
    repeatedly and did not take his medication.  On one of these AWOLs, he had stolen
    all the money in a co-patients back account.  In respect of another incident,
    he had been convicted and sentenced on a charge of fraud under $5,000.  He had
    reportedly bullied a co-patient for money and, on different occasions, had tested
    positive for marijuana use, threatened a nurse, and refused to provide urine
    samples for testing.

[21]

Based
    on this evidence and the parties agreed position, the Board accepted that Thurstons
    transfer to the Secure Forensic Unit, with privileges up to and including
    indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, was necessary and appropriate.
    The Board held, at p. 5 of its reasons:

Mr. Thurston should be transferred to the Secure Forensic Unit
    because he has lost the trust of his doctor and treatment team, is at high and
    constant risk of AWOL, and has been difficult to manage on the general unit
    (smoking against the rules; testing positive for marijuana; provoking
    altercations with staff).

Mr. Thurston has not been placed on a secure unit in some
    years, and the transfer is a step backward for him.  Detention on a secure unit
    has become necessary, first and foremost, to prevent Mr. Thurston from going
    AWOL yet again and committing property offences (
i.e
., theft; fraud)
    to fund his use of cocaine.  Though addiction and cocaine use may be Mr. Thurstons
    most critical issues at this time, Dr. Pearces evidence was clear that his
    antisocial behavior is an additional problem.  In the circumstances, Mr. Thurston
    must be placed on the secure unit, with no access to the community, until he
    regains the trust of his doctor and treatment team, and shows he can follow
    hospital rules.

[22]

However,
    as I have said, the Board declined to order a six-month review of Thurstons
    disposition.  It reasoned as follows, at p. 5:

The parties jointly recommended that the Board order a
    six-month review. Dr. Pearce supported the recommendation in the hope that this
    timeline might motivate Mr. Thurston to address the problems that have made
    transfer to the secure unit necessary.  It is clear from Ms. Szigetis
    submissions that she regards six months as the time frame in which Mr. Thurstons
    return to the general unit can be considered.

Both are laudable objectives, and a joint submission from all
    parties does carry weight with the Board.  In this instance, the joint
    recommendation is subject to the Board policy, which sets a strict threshold
    for six-month review.  The Board must be convinced, in making such an order,
    that the circumstances are compelling.

Mr. Thurstons most recent AWOL was a little more than two
    months ago, and it involved a theft against a co-patient, cocaine use, and
    breach of his Disposition.  He did not return to the hospital on his own, but
    was intercepted at an appointment he kept, on Dr. Pearces evidence, in the
    expectation of being paid.  Dr. Pearces updates since the AWOL pointed to ongoing
    problems: a positive cannabis screen; smoking on the unit in violation of the
    rules; and an altercation with a nurse.  Although Dr. Pearce did tell the Board
    that Mr. Thurston has been a bit better with staff in August, nothing in the
    evidence offers a reasoned basis to believe that Mr. Thurston is ready to
    comply with hospital regulations and regain the trust of his treatment team.
    An order for six-month review is not warranted in these circumstances.

D.      Issues

[23]

There
    is one narrow issue on appeal.  Thurston, supported by the intervener the
    Mental Health Legal Committee, argues the Boards refusal to pre-schedule a
    six-month review of his disposition was unreasonable.  He submits that, in
    declining to order a six-month review, the Board i) breached natural justice
    and its duty of procedural fairness; and ii) misapprehended the nature of the
    parties joint submission and the evidence adduced in support of the six-month
    review request.  In these circumstances, Thurston says, the Boards decision
    led to a miscarriage of justice.

E.      Discussion

(1)

Hearing Fairness Issue

[24]

Thurston
    makes several arguments in support of his claim that, in refusing to order a
    six-month review of his agreed disposition, the Board breached natural justice
    and its duty of procedural fairness.

[25]

Thurston
    argues that the Board erred by rejecting this part of the joint submission on
    the basis of a previously undisclosed Board policy establishing a strict
    threshold for six-month review  namely, a requirement that compelling
    circumstances be demonstrated to justify an accelerated review.

[26]

Thurston
    maintains that neither he nor the other parties to the hearing were aware of
    the existence of such a policy and that the suggested policy was neither
    publicly known nor available.  Thurston submits that the Board was obliged to
    tell the parties about the existence of the policy, the particulars of the strict
    threshold to be met on seeking a six-month review, and what is meant by
    compelling circumstances.  The Boards failure to disclose this information,
    Thurston says, was a breach of natural justice and of the Boards duty of
    procedural fairness.

[27]

In
    a related argument, Thurston contends that the Boards failure to disclose the
    existence of the policy  and its associated failure to invite submissions from
    the parties on the application of the policy to the request for a six-month
    review  prejudiced him at the hearing.  Thurston says that, had he known of
    the existence of the policy, he might not have supported CAMHs proposed disposition.
    At the least, he might have led evidence at the hearing and made further
    submissions regarding the merits of a six-month review.

[28]

Thurston
    also argues that the Boards error was exacerbated by two factors, namely i) the
    Boards failure to ask questions of any party regarding the six-month review
    request; and ii) comments by the Chair of the panel to Thurston at the
    conclusion of the hearing to the effect that Thurston would be returning before
    the Board in six-months time.  Thurston says that these factors, in effect,
    misled the parties into believing that the Board was unconcerned by the joint request
    for a six-month review.

[29]

On
    the particular facts of this case, I would reject these arguments.

[30]

Recently,
    in
Osawe (Re)
, 2015 ONCA 280, this court held that the Board owes a
    duty of procedural fairness to accused persons under its jurisdiction: at paras.
    1 and 36  37.  In the context of Board hearings, the overriding objectives of
    procedural fairness are to ensure that the Boards decisions are made using a
    fair and open procedure and that affected individuals can put forward their
    views and evidence fully and have them considered by the [Board]: at para. 72.

[31]

In
    light of the Boards duty of procedural fairness, I have no hesitation in
    accepting that, if the Board develops an internal policy that might affect the
    Boards evaluation of an appropriate disposition for an NCR accused, the policy
    should be disclosed to the parties where its existence and content are not otherwise
    in the public domain.  Where the liberty interests of an NCR accused are
    engaged, fundamental fairness requires no less.  In such circumstances, in my
    view, the Board is obliged, as an institution, to take appropriate steps to
    publicize the policy or otherwise make it known to the public in a suitable
    fashion.

[32]

Further,
    if such disclosure has not been made in advance of a Board hearing and the
    application of the policy is engaged, it is incumbent on the relevant panel of
    the Board to disclose the policy and to provide the affected parties with an
    opportunity to lead evidence and make submissions, if so advised, on the import
    and application of the policy to the case at hand.  In some cases, in order to
    meet this obligation, it may be necessary for the panel to recall the parties and
    to receive further evidence and submissions.

[33]

The
    objective of such measures, in all cases, is to ensure that the parties to a
    Board hearing, especially the NCR accused, have an opportunity to fully address
    the application of any Board policy that may affect the disposition to be
    imposed and to have their views and evidence, if any, on the matter considered
    by the Board.

[34]

Osawe
    (Re)
also holds, at para. 71, that, when the Board contemplates rejecting
    a joint submission and imposing a more restrictive disposition, it must give
    the accused notice that it may do so and the opportunity to make further
    submissions and, if necessary, lead additional evidence.  See also
Osawe
    (Re)
,

at para. 37.

[35]

In
    this case, I am not persuaded that Thurston was denied natural justice or procedural
    fairness at his August 2014 hearing.  I agree with the Crowns submission that
    the Board adequately fulfilled its duty of procedural fairness and that no
    miscarriage of justice occurred.  I say this for several reasons.

[36]

First,
    the Boards denial of an accelerated review did not result in the imposition of
    a more restrictive disposition than that envisaged under the joint submission.
    This important factor distinguishes this case from
Osawe (Re)
and
    related authorities.  Here, the Board did not refuse any possibility of an
    early review.  Rather, it held, at p. 6, that if and when Thurston takes steps
    to change his behaviour an early review can be requested by any of the
    parties, and it is Board practice to process such requests expeditiously.

[37]

In
    any event, the scheduling of a review hearing does not depend upon a panel of
    the Boards agreeing to order an early hearing at the time of a disposition
    hearing.  Under the
Criminal Code
, the Board, in the exercise of its
    discretion, may order an early review hearing at any time, of its own motion or
    at the request of the accused or any other party: s. 672.82(1).  Moreover,
    the Board is obliged to hold an early review hearing if the person in charge of
    a hospital where an NCR accused is detained requests an early hearing: s.
    672.81(2).  That is what transpired in this case in connection with Thurstons
    August 2014 review hearing.

[38]

Thus,
    the Boards refusal to order an early review, at the time of the August 2014
    hearing, did not and does not preclude any party, including Thurston, from
    requesting an expedited review under the relevant provisions of the
Criminal
    Code
.  That no party had elected to do so by the time of this appeal is no
    bar to such a request.  The point remains that, unlike in
Osawe (Re)
,
    the Board in this case cannot be said to have reject[ed] the joint submission
and
impos[ed] a more restrictive disposition (emphasis added).

[39]

As
    for the suggested Board policy, the record before this court does not confirm
    its existence or its reach.  It is thus unclear to what policy the Board was
    referring in its reasons.

[40]

Second,
    and importantly, I do not read the Boards reasons as indicating that its
    rejection of the proposed six-month review was in fact based on a Board policy
    regarding accelerated review hearings.  Immediately after its reference to a Board
    policy regarding six-month reviews, quoted above, the Board addressed the
    merits of a six-month review on the facts of this case.  Having done so, for
    clear and cogent reasons, the Board concluded that the pre-scheduling of an
    accelerated review was not warranted given Thurstons circumstances at the time
    of the August hearing.  There was ample support for this conclusion on the
    evidentiary record before the Board, including the evidence of the appellants
    recent behaviours, his ongoing problems while in detention and the opinion of
    his treating psychiatrist concerning his treatment compliance and progress.  No
    recourse to any internal Board policy was required to reach the conclusion that
    the pre-scheduling of a six-month review was inappropriate in all the
    circumstances.

[41]

Third,
    I would reject the contention that Thurston was prejudiced by the Boards
    failure explicitly to inform the parties that it might reject the six-month
    review component of the joint submission.

[42]

This
    was a straightforward hearing, held on CAMHs request for an early
    reconsideration of the terms of Thurstons February 2014 disposition.  The live
    issues at the hearing were few in number and narrow in scope, involving Thurstons
    appropriate placement, the variation of his privileges to exclude access to the
    community and the timing of his next review hearing.  All parties clearly
    understood that these were the only germane issues as they formed the specific
    subject matter of the joint submission.  The issue whether the Board should
    advance the timing of Thurstons next review was therefore clearly in play at
    this hearing.

[43]

There
    is no question that the Board is not obliged to accept a joint submission:
Osawe
    (Re)
, at paras. 33 and 57;
Hassan (Re)
, 2011 ONCA 561, 283 O.A.C.
    154, at paras. 24  26;
R. v. Lepage
(1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 3 (C.A.), at
    p. 28, affd [1999] 2 S.C.R. 744.  Indeed, this court has held that automatic
    acceptance of a joint submission is inconsistent with the Boards statutory
    mandate:
Osawe (Re)
, at paras. 33 and 57;
Hassan (Re)
, at
    para. 25.

[44]

The
    parties were not entitled, therefore, to assume that the Board would accept
    their joint submission, in whole or in part.  Given the limited nature of the
    matters at issue, it was incumbent on the parties to address the merits of the components
    of the disposition they urged, including the timing of Thurstons next review
    hearing, in their submissions.

[45]

That
    is precisely what occurred in this case.  During the hearing, Thurstons
    counsel cross-examined Dr. Pearce, Thurstons treating psychiatrist, on the
    issue of a six-month review.  She also made submissions to the Board on why the
    joint submission should be accepted, including specifically on why, in her
    view, a six-month review hearing should be ordered.  In these circumstances,
    the merits of the pre-scheduling of a six-month review having been squarely in
    issue, no notice from the Board that it might reject the request for an
    accelerated review hearing was required to ensure hearing fairness.  Thurston
    had full and fair opportunity to be heard on the exact point now in dispute on
    appeal.

[46]

Notably,
    there was no suggestion before the Board that Thurston had agreed to a transfer
    to the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH in exchange for a six-month review.  In her
    submissions to the Board, Thurstons counsel made clear that Thurston was
    seeking the requested transfer because he would benefit from the additional
    programming available on the Secure Forensic Unit and from the opportunity to
    reside on a unit that is designed to afford him as much liberty in terms of
    passes with staff as possible.  Thus, the parties, including Thurston, viewed Thurstons
    transfer and restriction of privileges as advantageous to his treatment and
    liberty interests regardless of the timing of his next review hearing.

[47]

Finally,
    the Board held, at p. 5 of its reasons, that nothing in the evidence offers a reasoned
    basis to believe that Mr. Thurston is ready to comply with hospital regulations
    and regain the trust of his treatment team.  This conclusion was firmly
    grounded in Dr. Pearces testimony and the contents of the hospital reports,
    which detailed Thurstons history (including his recent history) of AWOLs from
    the hospital, his behavioural problems while in detention, his illicit drug use,
    his property crimes involving other patients, and his difficulties with his
    treatment team and hospital staff.

[48]

In
    light of this evidence, it is difficult to conceive that either the evidence
    bearing on the issue of a six-month review or the submissions of counsel would
    have been any different had the parties been informed by the Board that an
    accelerated review hearing might be refused.  On the uncontested evidence of Thurstons
    conduct and course at CAMH, it was open to the Board to conclude, as it
    essentially did, that it was unrealistic to think that Thurston would improve
    sufficiently within six months so as to warrant early reconsideration of his
    disposition.

[49]

For
    all these reasons, I see no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice,
    nor any miscarriage of justice, in the Boards decision to deny an accelerated
    review of Thurstons disposition.

(2)

Misapprehension of Evidence Issue

[50]

Thurstons
    claim that the Board misapprehended the nature of the joint submission and the
    evidence relied on by the parties in support of a six-month review may be dealt
    with summarily.

[51]

As
    I have said, the joint submission put before the Board pertained to only three
    issues i) whether the appellant should be transferred from the General Forensic
    Unit (minimum security) to the Secure Forensic Unit (medium security) at CAMH; ii)
    whether his privileges should be limited to indirectly supervised hospital and
    grounds privileges; iii) and whether a mandatory six-month review should be
    ordered.  The Boards reasons indicate that it fully appreciated all these
    aspects of the joint submission.

[52]

The
    Boards reasons also confirm that it understood the core evidence bearing on
    the issue of a six-month review.  The Board was not required to detail in its
    reasons all the evidence adduced at the hearing, especially where the evidence
    was brief, uncontradicted and relied on by all the parties to support the joint
    submission.  I see no basis on which to conclude that the Board ignored or misunderstood
    any of the pertinent evidence before it.

(3)

Jurisdictional Issue

[53]

It
    is appropriate to address one further issue.

[54]

The
    Boards ruling regarding the duration of Thurstons August 2014 disposition is
    set out in the Boards formal disposition order, dated August 27, 2014.  As I have
    said, the order provides that the August 2014 disposition will remain
    operative until a new Board disposition is issued.

[55]

I
    make two observations regarding this provision.  First, the language regarding
    the duration of the disposition is unnecessary  the result intended would
    follow in any event under the relevant statutory scheme for NCR accuseds set
    out in the
Criminal Code
.

[56]

Second,
    even though this language is contained in the Boards formal disposition order,
    there is a strong argument that a Board decision regarding the timing of a
    review hearing is not part of a disposition within the meaning of that term
    under s. 672.1(1) of the
Criminal Code
.
[1]
The question is important for two reasons.  If, as a matter of law, the timing
    of a review hearing is not properly to be regarded as part of a Board
    disposition, then this court has no jurisdiction under s. 672.72(1) of the
Criminal
    Code
to hear an appeal against a Board ruling on that issue.  Further, and
    on the same basis, the Boards statutory obligation under s. 672.54 of the
Criminal
    Code
to impose a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the
    circumstances (formerly, the least onerous and least restrictive disposition)
    on an NCR accused would not be engaged in respect of the timing of a review
    hearing.

[57]

The
    court raised this jurisdictional issue with the parties at the outset of this
    appeal hearing.  In response, Crown counsel pointed out that, at the
    appellants August 2014 hearing, all parties asked the Board to address the
    timing of Thurstons next review as part of the Boards disposition, in
    accordance with what appears to be the Boards normal practice.  The hearing
    proceeded on this basis.  In these circumstances, the Crown takes the position
    that Thurston is entitled to appeal this aspect of the Boards decision to this
    court.  All parties to the appeal support the Crowns position.

[58]

In
    these somewhat unusual circumstances, I should not be understood as accepting
    that a Board ruling on the timing of an NCR accuseds next review hearing forms
    part of a Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the
Criminal Code
so
    as to trigger a right of appeal to this court from that ruling.  Nothing in
    these reasons should be taken as endorsing that proposition.

Disposition

[59]

For
    the reasons given, I would dismiss the appeal.

Released:

MAY 19 2015                                   E.A.
    Cronk J.A.

DD                                                  I agree
    Doherty J.A.

I
    agree H.S. LaForme J.A.

[1]
For example, ss. 672.81(1.2) and (1.32) of the
Criminal Code
permit
    the Board, after making a disposition, to extend the time for holding a
    subsequent review hearing in certain circumstances.  Section 672.81(1.5)
    provides that a Board extension decision is deemed to be a disposition for
    the purpose of the appeal provisions under the
Criminal Code
.  Thus,
    s. 672.81(1.5) affords some support for the view that a Board decision
    concerning the timing of a review hearing is not otherwise part of a Board
    disposition; the s. 672.81 (1.5) deeming provision would be unnecessary if a
    Board ruling to extend the time for a review hearing were already part of a
    Board disposition.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: 514052 Ontario Limited v. 2000768 Ontario Inc.,
    2015 ONCA 401

DATE: 20150605

DOCKET: C58651

Juriansz, Lauwers and Huscroft JJ.A.

BETWEEN

514052
    Ontario Limited and 1176847 Ontario Limited c.o.b.

as Orfus Realty

Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

2000768
    Ontario Inc., Drew Future Developments Inc., and

2080323
    Ontario Inc.

Defendants (
Respondent
)

Blair W.M. Bowen, for the appellant

No one appearing for the respondent

Heard: June 1, 2015

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Kofi N. Barnes of
    the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 17, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The appellant, a developer, entered into a development agreement with a
    municipality. The agreement entitled the appellant to receive credits in the
    amount of $123,443.37 from the municipality against development charges it
    would have to pay as a condition of obtaining a building permit for any
    development it wished to build on property it owned. The appellant constructed
    the infrastructure required to earn the credits but did not proceed with the
    development. Instead, the appellant sold the land and its entitlement to
    receive the credits to 2000768 Ontario Inc. The agreement of purchase and sale
    required 2000768 Inc. to pay to the appellant the credits once the municipality
    had established their amount. The agreement of purchase and sale also provided
    that if 2000768 Inc. did not develop the property, it would obtain a similar
    covenant from a subsequent purchaser of the property.

[2]

2000768 Inc. sold the land and its entitlement to Drew Future
    Developments Inc., but did not include the covenant to pay to the appellant the
    credits once the municipality had established their amount. Drew Inc. did not
    develop the property. Instead, it sold the property to the respondent, 2080323
    Ontario Inc., without obtaining a covenant to pay to the appellant any credits
    it ultimately obtained. The respondent developed the property and received
    credits from the municipality in the amount of $123,443.37.

[3]

The appellant settled its action against 2000768 Inc. and Drew Inc. The
    trial and this appeal concern only its action against the respondent. The
    appellant claims the respondent was unjustly enriched by the amount of the
    credits granted by the municipality.

[4]

The trial judge found the respondent had been enriched and the appellant
    had suffered a corresponding deprivation. However, he concluded there was a
    juristic reason for the enrichment and so dismissed the appellants claim. Appellants
    counsel advanced a cogent and effective argument that the trial judge erred in
    his analysis of whether there was a juristic reason for the enrichment. We find
    it unnecessary to deal with that argument as we would dismiss the appeal on a
    different basis.

[5]

The trial judge found as a fact that the respondent paid a premium for
    the property because it had been led to believe it would receive credits from
    the municipality. The trial judge said, it is not within a reasonable
    expectation of [either party] that [the respondent] would return a benefit it
    had paid a premium for and was never aware was due to [the appellant] and there
    were not public policy considerations in support of recovery.

[6]

On our analysis, the factual finding that the respondent had paid a
    premium for the land leads to the conclusion the respondent was not enriched.
    While the appellant attacked this factual finding, there was evidence to
    support it. The respondent may not have understood the precise nature or amount
    of the credits, but it did a pay a premium for the property because it believed
    it would receive credits in the order of $100,000. The respondent, having paid
    out a premium in the expectation of future credits, could not be enriched by
    the eventual receipt of those credits. The party that was enriched is Drew Inc.,
    which received the premium paid for the property without incurring the expenses
    of installing the infrastructure.

[7]

The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

R.G.
    Juriansz J.A.

P.
    Lauwers J.A.

Grant
    Huscroft J.A.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION:
Baradaran v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2015 ONCA
    490

DATE: 20150629

DOCKET: C59760

Simmons, Cronk and Blair JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Manoucher Baradaran

Appellant

(Plaintiff)

and

Tarion
    Warranty Corporation, Roger Boyd,

Abbassgholi
    Nasseri, Master Custom Homes Inc.

Respondents

(Defendants)

Manoucher Baradaran, in person

Sophie Vlahakis, for the respondent Tarion Warranty
    Corporation

Howard Shankman, for the respondents Master Custom Homes
    Inc. and Abbassgholi Nasseri

Heard and released orally: June 11, 2015

On appeal from the order of Justice F.L. Myers of the
    Superior Court of Justice, dated November 26, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The appellant appeals from an order requiring that he pay certain
    outstanding costs orders by February 1, 2015 failing which the respondents may
    move in writing without notice to dismiss the action.  The order further
    provides that pending payment of the outstanding costs orders, the action is
    stayed.

[2]

This court has jurisdiction only to hear appeals from final orders, not
    interlocutory orders.  Interlocutory orders are essentially orders that do not
    determine any substantive matter in the action.

[3]

The respondents contend that the order appealed from is interlocutory
    and that the appeal route is to the Divisional Court with leave.  We agree.
    The order under appeal did not determine any substantive matter in the action.
    Moreover, it remains open to the appellant to proceed with the action so long
    as he complies with the terms of the order.  Although the action may be
    dismissed if the appellant fails to comply with the order, that does not change
    the interlocutory character of the order under appeal.  See
Inforica Inc. v.
    CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc.
, 2009 ONCA 642 and
Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board
, 2015 ONCA 149.

[4]

The appeal is therefore quashed.  Costs to the respondents Master Custom
    Homes Inc. and Abbassgholi Nasseri, fixed in the amount of $7,294.30, inclusive
    of disbursements and taxes, and to Tarion Warranty Corporation, fixed in the
    amount of $2,600, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.  Approval by the
    appellant of the formal order of this court is hereby dispensed with.

Janet Simmons
    J.A.

E.A. Cronk J.A.

R.A. Blair


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Bellehumeur
    v. Windsor Factory Supply Ltd., 2015 ONCA 473

DATE: 20150624

DOCKET: C57727

MacFarland, Rouleau and Lauwers JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Fred Bellehumeur

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

Windsor Factory Supply Ltd.

Defendant/Respondent

James A. Renaud, for the appellant

Leonard P. Kavanaugh, Q.C. and Anna M. Vannelli, for the
    respondent

Heard and released orally:  June 18, 2015

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Terrence L.J.
    Patterson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 8, 2013.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

Patterson J. concluded that the respondent was not aware of the
    appellants mental disability and had no indication of such until after he was
    terminated for cause on November 8, 2005, as a result of violent threats made
    to fellow employees when he left the place of employment after being
    disciplined on November 1.

[2]

The record supports this finding. The respondent had been accommodating
    to the appellant for the various disabilities he reported to them over time: his
    alcoholism, his thyroid and cardiac issues. The respondent also permitted the
    appellant to work in the warehouse as opposed to the counter because he found
    it less stressful upon returning to work after being off for his reported
    medical issues.

[3]

The trial judge concluded the threats made on November 1, 2005 were
    workplace violence. The respondent being unaware of the appellants mental
    disability did not engage in discriminatory conduct under the
Ontario Human
    Rights Code
when it fired the appellant. They fired him as they would any
    employee who engaged in such workplace misconduct. In
British Columbia (Public
    Service Agency) v. British Columbia Government and Services Employees Union
,
    2008 BCCA 357 an alcoholic employee was fired for theft. The Court of Appeal
    succinctly dealt with the issue as follows:

I can find no suggestion in the evidence that Mr. Goodings
    termination was arbitrary and based on preconceived ideas concerning his alcohol
    dependency. It was based on his conduct that rose to the level of crime. That
    his conduct might have been influenced by his alcohol dependency is irrelevant
    if that admitted dependency played no part in the employers decision to
    terminate his employment and he suffered no impact for his misconduct greater
    than that another employee who suffered for the same misconduct.

[4]

The appellants mental disability, unknown to the employer, at the time
    he was terminated played no role in the reason the appellant was terminated. He
    was terminated because he made violent threats against fellow employees.

[5]

The trial judge concluded this amounted to just cause for dismissal. The
    trial judge followed the analysis in the
McKinley v. BC Tel
, [2001] 2
    S.C.R. 161 and
Dowling v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board)
,
    [2004] O.J. No. 4812 (C.A.) and concluded in the particular circumstances
    of this case, the employment relationship could no longer exist.  We see no
    basis to interfere.

[6]

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[7]

Costs to the respondent fixed at the agreed sum of $15,000.00 inclusive
    of disbursements and HST.

J. MacFarland J.A.

Paul
    Rouleau J.A.

P.
    Lauwers J.A.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Berry v. Pulley, 2015 ONCA 449

DATE: 20150619

DOCKET: C55933

Hoy A.C.J.O., Watt and Brown JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Patrick Berry, James Deluce, Jeffrey Karelsen,
Robert James Simerson and Ernest Zurkan

Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

Chris Pulley, Tom Fraser, James Griffith, Peter
Wallace, George Cockburn, Denis Belhumeur, Greg Mutchler, Gary Dean, Yves
Filion, Howard Malone, Kevin Vaillant and Gordon Grieg

Defendants (Respondents)

and

Kent Hardisty

Third Party (Respondent)

Benjamin Zarnett, Graham D. Smith and Peter R. Merchant,
for the appellants

Steve Waller and Leanne Storms, for the respondents

Brian Shell and Steven Sagle, for the third party
respondent

Heard: April 14, 2015

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sarah E. Pepall of
the Superior Court of Justice dated July 25, 2012, with reasons reported at
2012 ONSC 1790.

Hoy A.C.J.O.:

I  overview

[1]

This appeal arises out of turf wars waged nearly twenty years ago
between Air Canada pilots and pilots of Air Ontario and other regional carriers
in which Air Canada held an interest.

[2]

In the late 1980s, Air Canadas pilots became concerned that Air Canada
would transfer domestic routes to the cheaper regional carriers, which had
lower pilot costs. Some thought that merging the pilot seniority lists of Air
Canada and the regional carriers would protect Air Canada pilots. They would
get access to the routes that the regional pilots flew. Merger could also
benefit the regional pilots. They would be able to bid on Air Canada planes,
advance their careers, and make more money.

[3]

On March 1, 1991, with the support of union executives from Air Canada,
Air Ontario and four other regional airlines, the Canadian Airline Pilots
Association (CALPA)  a trade union that, at its peak, represented 4,000
pilots in Canada  initiated a process to merge pilot seniority lists at Air
Canada and five regional airlines. However, the Air Canada pilots and the regional
pilots had different perspectives on how a merged seniority list should look.
The Air Canada pilots pushed for an end-tail merger, in which the most senior
regional pilot would follow the most junior Air Canada pilot. The regional
pilots argued for a dove-tail merger, in which pilots would be assigned
seniority numbers by start date, regardless of the airline for which they flew.
Ultimately, an arbitrator  Michel Picher  crafted first a framework for a
merged seniority list and then, a number of months later, drafted an actual
merged seniority list.

[4]

Neither the framework nor the list was binding on Air Canada and neither
could be implemented without its agreement. CALPA contemplated that Air
Canadas agreement would be secured through collective bargaining.

[5]

A couple of days after the arbitrator finalized the merged seniority
list, the Air Canada pilots voted to leave CALPA and join a new union known as
the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA). The merged seniority list was not
implemented.

[6]

In a class proceeding, the representative plaintiffs of a class
comprised of 171 pilots employed by Air Ontario on March 28, 1995 claimed,
among other things, that the defendant Air Canada pilots had committed the tort
of unlawful act conspiracy. In particular, they alleged that from March 28,
1995 until November 14, 1995, Air Canada First Officer Chris Pulley  who was
the Chairman of Air Canadas Master Executive Council during that period  and
defined sub-classes of Air Canada pilots conspired with each other by expressly
or impliedly entering into an agreement or agreements to prevent implementation
of the merged seniority list. The plaintiffs sued for expenses incurred in
connection with creating the merged list and for the loss of the chance to implement
the merged seniority list.

[7]

Following a lengthy common issues trial, the trial judge dismissed the
plaintiffs claims. She found that the plaintiffs claim for unlawful act
conspiracy failed against the defendants in sub-classes two, four and six
because those defendants had committed no unlawful acts, the second of the five
elements in unlawful act conspiracy.

[8]

After finding that the plaintiffs had established the first four
elements of unlawful act conspiracy with respect to the defendants in
sub-classes one, three and five, the trial judge dismissed the claims against
those defendants because she found their unlawful conduct did not cause damage
to the plaintiffs. Due to a number of barriers to implementation of a merged
seniority list, the plaintiffs did not lose more than a
de minimis
chance to have a merged seniority list implemented.

[9]

The plaintiffs advance four principal arguments on this appeal, all
relating to their claim of unlawful act conspiracy:

1.

The trial judge erred in concluding that a union members right to
dissent permitted the defendants in sub-class six (Air Canada rank-and-file
who somehow acted to prevent implementation of a merged seniority list) to resist
implementation of the merged list. As a result, the trial judge wrongly concluded
that the defendants in sub-class six acted lawfully in resisting implementation
of the merged list.

2.

The trial judge erred in concluding that sub-classes two and four
(described below) did not commit unlawful acts related to the merged list.

3.

The trial judge erred in her causation analysis. She should have
concluded that the defendants unlawful conduct had caused the plaintiffs to
lose more than a
de minimis
chance of having a merged seniority list
implemented. She should then have gone on to value that lost chance.

4.

The trial judge erred by failing to award damages equal to the $150,280
incurred by the plaintiffs in retaining lawyers and preparing for the
arbitration with respect to the merged seniority list.

[10]

As
I explain below, I reject each of these arguments and would dismiss this
appeal.

[11]

Because
I conclude that the trial judge did not err in her causation analysis, and that
there is therefore no need to value the lost chance, I need not address the
plaintiffs further argument that this court should value the lost chance in
the aggregate on the evidence of the plaintiffs expert rather than refer the
chance for individual assessment (as the trial judge would have ordered had she
found causation).

[12]

Before
addressing the plaintiffs four principal arguments, I will first set out some
portions of the background in more detail and then outline the elements of the
tort of unlawful act conspiracy.

II  THE BACKGROUND

The CALPA Constitution, the Merger Policy and the declaration
of merger

[13]

While
the Air Canada pilots and the pilots of the various regional airlines formed
separate bargaining units, they were all members of CALPA. CALPA had a
Constitution and an Administrative Policy to which all members were bound.
Under a section of CALPAs Administrative Policy, the President of CALPA could
declare a merger of pilot seniority lists, even if the pilots airlines had
not actually merged operations. This section  referred to by the trial judge
as the Merger Policy  set out a process for integrating the seniority lists of
affected airlines once the President declared a merger.

[14]

The
CALPA Constitution provided for Local Councils. Each Local Council decided
local matters and consisted of members who were employed by the same airline or
division of an airline and who were based at the same location. In the relevant
period, Air Canada had Local Councils in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
Each Local Council elected a Local Executive Council (LEC).

[15]

The
CALPA Constitution also provided that each bargaining unit would have a Master
Executive Council (MEC). The MEC was the highest governing body in all
matters that only affected the active CALPA membership of a particular airline.
The MEC was comprised of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each Local Executive
Council. The members of the MEC elected a Chairman. First Officer Chris Pulley
was the Chairman of Air Canadas MEC from September 1994 until the Air Canada
pilots decertified CALPA on November 14, 1995.

[16]

At
the request of the MEC Chairmen for Air Canada, Air Ontario and four other regional
airlines, the President of CALPA declared a merger of pilot seniority lists in
March 1991.

Unsuccessful negotiation of a merged seniority list

[17]

As
provided in the Merger Policy, the MEC of each merging bargaining unit
appointed two Merger Representatives to negotiate a merged seniority list. One
of Air Canadas Merger Representatives is the defendant in sub-class two in
this action.

[18]

CALPA
did not pay all expenses associated with the merger process. The MEC for each
airline had to raise funds from its pilots. After an authorizing vote, the MECs
deducted monies from pilots wages to pay merger-related expenses. Air Ontarios
merger-related expenses amounted to $238,000 up to November 15, 1995. Of that
amount, $150,280 relates to their claim in this action and is the subject of
the fourth issue that the plaintiffs raise on appeal.

[19]

The
various Merger Representatives were unable to agree on a merged seniority list.
Mediations conducted in 1992 and 1993 failed. By late 1993, Air Canadas MEC
Chairman was receiving weekly if not daily communications on merger from Air
Canada pilots, about 90% of whom were against merger. In response to pilot
dissatisfaction, the Air Canada MEC in March 1994 passed a resolution to try
and postpone, delay or cancel the merger of the seniority lists. The Air Canada
MEC also tried to convince CALPAs President to dissolve the merger.

[20]

CALPA
was not deterred. In accordance with the Merger Policy, Michel Picher had been
appointed as arbitrator in January 1994 to put together the merged seniority
list. Arbitration commenced in September 1994. Air Canadas MEC participated fully
in the arbitration.

The March Picher Award and events triggered by it

[21]

On
March 28, 1995, Mr. Picher released his first award (the March Picher Award).
He contemplated two lists: one for seniority and a second for bidding on home base,
flying equipment and status as captain or first officer (the latter two of
which influenced a pilots income). He directed that an integrated seniority
list be based on date of hire but left the dates of hire to be determined by
the MECs. He selected an Air Canada pilot  P.J. OHara  to act as top
blocker for bidding on base, equipment and status. Regional pilots senior to
him would be treated as immediately junior to him for bidding purposes. In his
reasons, Mr. Picher indicated that only the 15% most junior Air Canada pilots would
compete with regional pilots in bidding on base, equipment and status. Mr.
Picher invited the parties to fashion the two actual lists, but reserved
jurisdiction in the event of a dispute.

[22]

The
Air Canada rank-and-file overwhelmingly opposed the March Picher Award. In
April 1995, Air Canadas MEC Chairman, First Officer Pulley, issued a
newsletter questioning the legitimacy of the merger process. Air Canada Local
Councils in Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal passed motions directing the Air
Canada MEC to reject the March Picher Award. In addition, the Montreal Local
Council unanimously resolved that, among other things, the Air Canada MEC
refuse to negotiate any agreement with Air Canada that would place any Air
Canada pilot on the current seniority list junior to any regional pilot. The
Montreal Local Council also resolved that Seniority Protection Committees be
appointed at the Montreal level and at the MEC level to explore means to
nullify the arbitration award.

[23]

A
Montreal-based Seniority Protection Committee was established and circulated a
petition, entitled the Declaration of Solidarity. The Declaration of
Solidarity was presented to Air Canada. It was also presented to CALPAs Board
of Directors with the hope that it would prompt them to stop the merger
process.

[24]

Air
Canada pilots also sent letters to Hollis Harris, the Chief Executive Officer
of Air Canada, complaining about the March Picher Award.

[25]

The
Air Canada MEC sought legal advice. Their lawyer told them the CALPA Constitution
did not require the Air Canada MEC to put the March Picher Award into the
collective agreement. The MEC unanimously passed a motion that recognized Air
Canada pilots direction to cease any efforts to implement the March Picher
Award. It also established the Special MEC Merger Advisory Committee (the
SMMAC) to, among other things, provide options on the merged seniority list.

[26]

The
SMMAC recommended that the Air Canada MEC withdraw its grievance with Air Canada
over Letter of Understanding 17 (LOU 17). LOU 17, concluded in 1988, provided
that Air Canada could not transfer flying to regional airlines and then lay off
Air Canada pilots due to loss of that flying. CALPA argued that Air Canada laid
off pilots in 1993 because it transferred flying to the regional airlines. The
SMMAC thought that pursuing the grievance risked demonstrating that Air Canada
was playing its bargaining units off against one another. And that demonstration
could provide fodder for an application under s. 35 of the
Canada Labour
Code
, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2
.
Under a s. 35 single employer application, the Canada Labour Relations Board
(the Board) could declare Air Canada and its regional airlines a single
employer and consolidate the pilot bargaining units into a single bargaining
unit.

[27]

Several
meetings were held between late April and early August 1995 to construct
seniority and bidding lists, as required by the March Picher Award. The Air
Canada MEC did not agree to the proposed lists.

[28]

The
Air Canada collective bargaining agreement expired on April 1, 1995. First
Officer Pulley and the Air Canada MEC directed the committee appointed to
negotiate the new collective agreement not to raise the March Picher Award or
the topic of a merged seniority list. Sub-class four of the defendants in this
action consists of members of that negotiating committee.

[29]

In
April or May 1995, some Air Canada pilots began discussing formation of a new
union. The Air Canada Pilots Association was subsequently formed and, in May
1995, it began soliciting support from Air Canada pilots. Because ACPA was
seeking the right to represent Air Canada pilots, CALPA and the Air Canada
MECs negotiating committee suspended collective bargaining with Air Canada on
June 22, 1995. On July 7, ACPA applied for certification as bargaining agent
for the Air Canada bargaining unit. In September, the Board ordered a
representation vote to determine whether CALPA or ACPA would represent Air
Canada pilots.

The Final Picher Award and de-certification of CALPA

[30]

On
October 9, Mr. Picher unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a resolution. He then
proceeded to prepare finalized, merged seniority lists  the Final Picher
Award. He released the Final Picher Award on November 7, 1995.

[31]

On
November 9, 1995, a substantial majority of Air Canada pilots voted to certify
ACPA as the new bargaining agent for Air Canada pilots. On November 14, 1995,
ACPA was certified and CALPA was subsequently decertified as the bargaining
agent for Air Canada pilots. ACPA and Air Canada then negotiated a collective
agreement.

[32]

On
March 20, 1996, CALPA filed an application before the Board, seeking a
declaration that Air Canada and its five regional airlines constituted a single
employer. On December 22, 1999, the Board declined to grant the relief
requested. It had denied an Air Canada single employer application in 1989 and
concluded that no change in the airline industry since warranted modifying its
position.

[33]

On
February 1, 1997, CALPA merged with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), a
U.S.-based union. ALPA became the successor bargaining agent for the Air
Ontario bargaining unit formerly represented by CALPA. ALPA, represented by Kent
Hardisty, defended the main action as a Third Party and is the Third Party
Respondent on this appeal. In a separate action, currently on hold, the Air
Canada defendants seek indemnification from ALPA for any damages arising out of
tort awarded to the plaintiffs. ALPA denies that the actions of the defendants
were tortious.

III  THE TORT OF UNLAWFUL ACT CONSPIRACY

[34]

Before
considering the issues raised on this appeal, it is useful to review the
elements of unlawful act conspiracy.

[35]

Canadian
courts recognize two types of actionable conspiracy:
Pro-Sys Consultants
Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.
, 2013 SCC 57, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477, at para. 73.
The first is predominant purpose conspiracy, also known as conspiracy to
injure. This appeal involves the second type, which is known as unlawful means
or unlawful act conspiracy.

[36]

As
outlined in
Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas
, 2011 ONCA 460,
106 O.R. (3d) 427, at para. 26, a plaintiff must establish the following five
elements to succeed on a claim of unlawful act conspiracy:

1)

The defendants acted in combination, that is, in concert, by agreement
or with a common design;

2)

The defendants conduct was unlawful;

3)

The defendants conduct was directed towards the plaintiff;

4)

The defendants should have known that, in the circumstances, injury to
the plaintiff was likely to result; and

5)

The defendants conduct caused injury to the plaintiff.

[37]

Only
the trial judges conclusions on the second and fifth elements are at issue on
appeal.

[38]

With
this framework, I turn to the first issue the plaintiffs raise on the second
element: whether the members of sub-class six acted unlawfully in resisting
implementation of a merged seniority list.

IV  ISSUE One: DID THE RIGHT TO
DISSENT permit THE DEFENDANTS IN SUB-CLASS SIX TO FRUSTRATE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE AWARD?

[39]

To
establish that the defendants in sub-class six (Air Canada rank-and-file who
somehow acted to prevent implementation of a merged seniority list) were liable
for unlawful act conspiracy, the plaintiffs had to establish that the
defendants in sub-class six acted unlawfully in resisting implementation of the
merged list. The trial judge acknowledged that the CALPA Constitution and
Merger Policy constituted a contract between each union member and CALPA. The
plaintiffs alleged that the members of sub-class six breached that contract and
thereby acted unlawfully. At issue is how a union members right to dissent from
the manner in which union affairs are conducted fits into this
breach-of-contract analysis.

[40]

Below,
I first outline the trial judges reasons on this point, then summarize the
plaintiffs arguments, and finally explain my conclusion that the defendants in
sub-class six did not breach their contracts with CALPA. In interpreting the
CALPA-member contract, I describe the relevance of sub-class sixs right to
dissent.

The trial judges reasons

[41]

Before
considering whether the members of sub-class six breached their contract with
CALPA, the trial judge considered the impact of a union members right of
dissent on the contract analysis. She quoted the following passage from
Tippett
v. International Typographical Union, Local 226
(1975), 63 D.L.R. (3d) 522 (B.C. S.C.), at p. 546
:

All members of trade unions have the unqualified right to speak
out against the manner in which union affairs are conducted. There is a right
of dissent. There is a right of decertification, subject to the condition that
no member of a union shall conspire with his employer to injure the union No
person can be expelled or penalized by a trade union for insisting on his
rights.

[42]

She
also cited
Berry v. Pulley
, 2002 SCC 40, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493, the
Supreme Court decision from an earlier point in this action. In 1998, the
defendants brought a summary judgment motion that made its way to the Supreme
Court. The court held that the plaintiffs breach of contract claims against
the defendants could not prevail. The CALPA Constitution and Merger Policy
constituted a contract between each union member and CALPA, not a contract between
union members. At para. 60, Iacobucci J., for the court, endorsed the passage
from
Tippett
and the unqualified right of union members to speak out
against the agenda of their bargaining agent.

[43]

The
trial judge also cited the more recent decision of
Fullowka v. Pinkertons
of Canada Ltd.
, 2010 SCC 5, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 132, which, at para. 149,
stated:

The relationship between a union member and his or her union is
contractual in nature, with both the union and the member agreeing to be bound
by the terms of the union constitution. However, the analogy to contract has
its limits given that the relationship is greatly determined by the relevant
statutory regime and the general principles of labour law which have been
fashioned over the years. Significantly, the members have the unqualified
right to speak out against the agenda of their bargaining agent.

[44]

The
trial judge then considered, at para. 417, whether a union members right to
dissent permitted him or her to depart from the terms of the CALPA Constitution
and Merger Policy. She concluded that the right to dissent did not permit
members of sub-classes one through five, who were either officers of the union
or members acting on behalf of officers, to so depart. However, members of
sub-class six could seek to avoid implementation of a merged seniority list.

[45]

At
para. 419, she explained that the CALPA Constitution and Merger Policy did not
require the members of sub-class six to act to implement the merged seniority
list:

A review of the Merger Policy places the primary responsibility
for implementation on CALPA, not the MECs, much less the individual members.
Furthermore, while the Constitution bound union members, the Merger Policy
provides that the President shall notify the MECs that it is their
responsibility, as representatives of the affected pilots, to activate the
described procedure for the integration of the pilot lists. The remainder of
the Merger Policy describes the role of the MEC, the Merger Representatives and
CALPA. With the exception of a passing reference to pilot groups in section
5(a) of the Merger Policy, there is no reference to the individual union
members.

[46]

She
concluded, at paras. 420 and 421:

It seems to me that the unqualified right to dissent should
operate to permit members of Class 6 to speak out against the agenda of CALPA
and its union officers in these circumstances.

Many members of Class 6 communicated with Air Canada, urged the
MEC and LECs to oppose the implementation of an integrated seniority list,
supported the formation of SMMAC or the Local Seniority Protection Committee,
signed the Declaration of Solidarity, and took other steps and positions to
advocate against the imposition of the Picher Award. I decline to find that any
of these actions or the conduct advanced by the Plaintiffs constituted unlawful
conduct for the purposes of liability for conspiracy. Rather, they were
permissible given the Class members right to dissent.

The plaintiffs argument

[47]

The
plaintiffs argument has two prongs. The second prong depends on the success of
the first.

[48]

First,
the plaintiffs argue that the trial judge erred in concluding that the conduct
of the rank-and-file members did not breach their contract with the union.

[49]

The
plaintiffs argue that the provisions of the Merger Policy bound all union
members, including the rank-and-file members of sub-class six, to implement the
merged seniority list. Section 1(c) of the Merger Policy provides that the
Merger Representatives will have authority to act for and on behalf of the
pilots of their respective airlines for the purpose of compiling a single
integrated seniority list. The Merger Policy also mandates arbitration if the
Merger Representatives cannot agree on an integrated pilot seniority list
through negotiation or mediation. The Merger Representatives of each airline
participate in the selection of the arbitrator. The arbitrators decision binds
all parties to the arbitration.

[50]

The
plaintiffs submit that a party to a contract who renders it impossible to
perform the contract breaches the contract:
Culina v. Giuliani
, [1972]
S.C.R. 343, at pp. 357-58, citing
Southern Foundries (1926), Ltd. v.
Shirlaw
, [1940] A.C. 701 (H.L. Eng.). Therefore, they say, because the Constitution
and the Merger Policy bound the members of sub-class six, those members could
not take any steps  including forming a new union and decertifying CALPA as
their bargaining agent  to intentionally thwart implementation of the merged
list.

[51]

Second,
if a union member harms another member by the breach of the unions rules, the
injured member may (if the requisite elements are present) have an action in
tort against that member:
Berry
(SCC)
, at para. 64. The plaintiffs submit that a union members right
to dissent does not insulate him or her from tort claims from other union
members.

[52]

The
plaintiffs argue that Winkler J. (as he then was) got it right in his
obiter
comment in the summary judgment motion in this action:
Berry v. Pulley
(1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 449 (S.C.). There, Winkler J. wrote, at para. 78:

The assertion of a right of dissent in this case ignores the
process that led to the Picher award. The defendants participated, through
representatives, in the process with full opportunity to have their views heard
by an independent arbiter. Consequently, I find that the defendants submission
that their actions were justifiable based on a right to dissent to be
untenable.

[53]

This
paragraph, the plaintiffs say, supports their position that the right to
dissent does not insulate the members of sub-class six from the plaintiffs tort
claims.

Analysis

[54]

The
plaintiffs argue on appeal that the members of sub-class six breached their
contracts with CALPA. I agree with the trial judge that members of sub-class six
did not breach their contracts with CALPA in their attempts to avoid the
implementation of the March Picher Award and the Final Picher Award. The
plaintiffs argument accordingly fails.

[55]

In
considering the plaintiffs argument that the members of sub-class six breached
their contracts with CALPA, it is important to keep in mind the Supreme Courts
comments in
Berry
about the nature of the contract between the member
and the trade union. The union-member contract is a unique adhesion contract:
Berry
(SCC), at para. 49. While, by the act of membership, both the union and the
member agree to be bound by the terms of the union constitution, the terms of
the contractual relationship will be greatly determined by the statutory
regime affecting unions generally as well as the labour law principles that
courts have fashioned over the years:
Berry
(SCC), at para. 48. As
the court pointed out, at para. 49, the statutory context plays a very
important role:

For example, the statutory right of members to be represented
by the union of their choice implies that the contract only exists as long as
the members maintain that union as their bargaining agent, and no penalty could
be imposed by the contract against members for exercising this statutory right.

[56]

As
the Supreme Court also noted at para. 49, the unique character and context of
[a member-union] contract, as well as the nature of the questions in issue,
will necessarily inform its construction in any given situation.

[57]

Accordingly,
the terms of the contractual relationship between the rank-and-file members of
sub-class six and CALPA must be interpreted in light of both the statutory
right of union members to choose their union
[1]
and the labour law principle affording a right to dissent to union members.

[58]

The
trial judge concluded, and I agree, that that the Constitution and Merger
Policy did not expressly require the members of sub-class six to act to implement
a merged seniority list. Nor did the Merger Policy expressly require the
members of sub-class six to refrain from impeding or thwarting implementation
of a merged list. Having regard to the statutory right of union members to
choose their union and the labour law principle affording a right to dissent to
union members, I would not imply such a term. Interpreting the terms of the
contractual relationship between the rank-and-file members of sub-class six in
light of the applicable principles, the members of sub-class six did not breach
their contracts with CALPA in voting to form ACPA and in taking other steps to
avoid implementation of a merged seniority list.

[59]

This
case does not involve a situation where a union members right to dissent
conflicts with an express provision of the union-member contract. While I am
doubtful that a provision directly or indirectly prohibiting dissent would
survive in what the Supreme Court has characterized as a unique adhesion
contract, that issue is best left for another day.

[60]

Culina
does not help the plaintiffs.

The contract between the members of
sub-class six and CALPA did not require the members of sub-class six to act to
implement, or to refrain from sabotaging, the merged seniority list.

[61]

Nor
does Winkler J.s
obiter
comment assist the plaintiffs. First, as
discussed above, the trial judges conclusion was driven by her interpretation
of the union-member contract. Second, the defendants were not yet divided into
sub-classes when Winkler J. gave his reasons. The trial judge determined that
the right to dissent did not apply to sub-classes one through five (the sub-classes
made up of union officers or members who worked on behalf of those officers).
Winkler J. might well have taken a more nuanced position had the defendants
been divided into sub-classes when he wrote his reasons. In light of the
subsequent, clear direction from the Supreme Court, I would interpret his
statement in
obiter
as restricted to the members of sub-classes one
through five.

[62]

I
turn next to whether the members of sub-classes two and four acted unlawfully.

V  ISSUE Two: DID THE TRIAL JUDGE
ERR IN FINDING THAT THE MEMBERS OF SUB-CLASSES Two AND Four COMMITTED NO
UNLAWFUL ACTS?

[63]

The
plaintiffs factum devoted a single paragraph to the argument that the trial
judge erred in concluding that the defendants in sub-classes two and four
committed no unlawful acts. The plaintiffs did not allude to the argument in
their oral submissions. I will address the argument very briefly.

[64]

The
trial judge found that the members of the Air Canada MEC, who comprise
sub-class one, engaged in unlawful conduct by breaching duties of loyalty to
CALPA and breaching their contractual obligations under the Merger Policy. The
trial judge found that the members of sub-classes two (one of the Air Canada
pilots Merger Representatives) and four (members of the committee appointed by
the Air Canada MEC to negotiate the new Air Canada collective bargaining
agreement) did not owe duties of loyalty to CALPA. The trial judge also
concluded, at para. 429, that members of sub-class two and sub-class four did
not commit unlawful acts on the basis of breach of the Merger Policy. She found
that the members of sub-classes two and four had a limited contractual role.
In addition, they acted under the control and direction of the Air Canada MEC.
Furthermore, it is not clear to me that their conduct did amount to a breach of
contract.

[65]

The
plaintiffs argue that whether the members of sub-classes two and four acted
under others direction is irrelevant and does not change the fact that they
were bound, as union members, to abide by the Merger Policy.

[66]

However,
this argument does not address the trial judges key determination. The trial
judge had to decide whether the members of the sub-classes, in their capacities
as Merger Representatives or negotiating committee members, breached the Merger
Policy. In addition to finding that the members of these two sub-classes acted
under the control and direction of the Air Canada MEC, the trial judge found
that their conduct did not breach the Merger Policy. The plaintiffs do not
articulate how the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the Merger
Policy, if they in fact argue that she did err. I am not persuaded that there
is any basis to interfere with the trial judges conclusion that sub-classes
two and four did not breach the Merger Policy.

[67]

I
turn next to the two issues arising out the fifth element of unlawful act
conspiracy: causation.

VI  ISSUE Three: DID THE TRIAL
JUDGE ERR IN HER CAUSATION ANALYSIS?

[68]

The
fifth and final element of unlawful act conspiracy required the plaintiffs to
prove that the defendants wrongful conduct caused them injury. The plaintiffs
put forward as their main injury the loss of the chance to implement the merged
seniority list. They say that the trial judge erred in concluding that, even without
the defendants unlawful acts, the chance of implementing the merged seniority
list was not more than
de minimis
.
As a result of that error,
the trial judge failed to value the probability of implementing the merged
seniority list.

[69]

In
my view, the trial judge made no error. First, I outline the legal framework
applied when a plaintiff claims injury consisting of the loss of a chance to
achieve a benefit or avoid a loss. Then I review the relevant portion of the
trial judges reasons, outline the plaintiffs arguments on this issue, and
finally explain my conclusion.

The loss of chance doctrine

[70]

A two-step framework applies when a plaintiff alleges
injury consisting of the loss of the chance to achieve a benefit or avoid a
loss.
Folland v. Reardon

(2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 688 (C.A.), at para. 73, outlines
the four criteria the plaintiff must meet at the first step:

First, the plaintiff must establish on the balance of
probabilities that but for the defendants wrongful conduct, the plaintiff had
a chance to obtain a benefit or avoid a loss. Second, the plaintiff must show
that the chance lost was sufficiently real and significant to rise above mere
speculation. Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the outcome, that is,
whether the plaintiff would have avoided the loss or made the gain, depended on
someone or something other than the plaintiff himself or herself. Fourth, the
plaintiff must show that the lost chance had some practical value. [Citations
omitted.]

[71]

As Doherty J.A. noted in
Folland
, at para. 74,
the second criterion is somewhat nebulous. There is no bright line between a
real chance and a speculative chance. An empirical review of the case law
suggests that chances assessed at less than 15 percent are seldom viewed as
real chances. This
de minimis
threshold has also been described as requiring the plaintiff to prove
she had some reasonable probability of realizing an advantage of some real
substantial monetary value:
Kinkel v. Hyman
, [1939] S.C.R. 364, at p. 383; see also
Eastwalsh
Homes Ltd. v. Anatal Developments Ltd
.
(1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 675 (C.A.), at pp. 689-90, leave to appeal refused, [1993]
S.C.C.A. No. 225.

[72]

If these four criteria
are met, the court proceeds to the second step and will award damages equal to
the probability of securing the lost benefit (or avoiding the loss) multiplied
by the value of the lost benefit (or the loss sustained): see
Wong
v. 407527 Ontario Ltd.
(1999), 179
D.L.R. (4th) 38 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 27.

The trial judges reasons

[73]

After
outlining the loss of chance doctrine, the trial judge concluded that the
plaintiffs failed to establish that they had lost any chance above the
de
minimis
range for any one of a number of reasons, which she detailed. I
will enumerate only a few of them.

[74]

First,
the decertification of CALPA as the bargaining agent for the Air Canada pilots,
which she found was lawful, terminated the prospect of implementing the merged
seniority list through collective bargaining. Mr. Picher issued the Final
Picher Award only one week before CALPA ceased to represent the Air Canada
pilots. The chance of implementing the Final Picher Award in that very short
period was negligible.

[75]

Second
and critically, Air Canada needed to agree for the parties to implement the
merged seniority list. As she explained, in the absence of consent by Air
Canada, a merged list was no more than a bargaining position. She accepted
the evidence of Hollis Harris, the CEO of Air Canada at the relevant time. He
testified that only he had the authority to accept the Picher Award and would
not have done so. According to Mr. Harris, [i]t would have been a financial disaster
to agree to a merged list. Based on his evidence, which was credible,
forceful and unequivocal, she found, at para. 457, that:

[E]ven if the Defendants had fully complied with the Merger
Policy and taken all necessary steps to implement the integrated seniority
list, there was no possibility that Air Canada would have agreed to a merged
list.

[76]

Third,
Air Canada pilots could not legally strike to force Air Canada to agree to a
merged seniority list.

The plaintiffs arguments on appeal

[77]

The
plaintiffs do not take issue with the parameters of the loss of chance doctrine
or the trial judges articulation of the doctrine. In essence, they make three
arguments.

[78]

First,
they argue that the trial judge should have assessed the second criterion in
the first step  whether the plaintiffs lost a chance above the
de minimis
range  beginning with the March Picher Award, and not the Final Picher Award.
They say that the chance to implement a merged seniority list arose with the
March Picher Award. They argue that chance was clearly real and significant, as
evidenced by the defendants strenuous efforts to frustrate implementation of
the Award. And, they continue, in March 1995, before the defendants engaged in
wrongful conduct, there was clearly a reasonable probability of implementing a
merged seniority list. The Air Canada MEC was about to begin collective
bargaining with Air Canada and could have bargained to include the merged
seniority list. In addition, CALPA was in a position to apply for a single
employer declaration, relying on the LOU 17 grievance as evidence that Air
Canada was undermining bargaining rights by playing bargaining units off
against one another. They argue that either alternative could have resulted in
implementation of a merged seniority list. Ignoring wrongdoing by the
defendants, the contingencies that had to work out in the plaintiffs favour to
implement the March Picher Award did not discount the value of the chance to a
de
minimis
level. Accordingly, the trial judge should have valued the lost
chance of implementing a merged seniority list.

[79]

Second,
the plaintiffs submit that figuring out what would have happened but for the
defendants wrongful conduct is particularly challenging in this case because the
defendants committed so many unlawful acts. In interpreting the impact of the
defendants unlawful acts, the plaintiffs argue the trial judge simply got it
wrong. They argue that Mr. Harris evidence did not foreclose the chance to
implement a merged list. They submit that if events had transpired differently,
Mr. Harris might have offered a more equivocal position.

[80]

Third,
they argue that although the trial judge properly directed herself to consider
not what did happen but what would have happened but for the defendants
wrongful conduct, she failed to follow that direction when she analyzed the
potential success of a single employer application. They say the trial judge
did not assess what would have happened had the Air Canada MEC not withdrawn
its grievance with Air Canada over LOU 17 and had instead supported CALPAs
single employer application. This, they submit, amounted to an error in
principle. The plaintiffs argue that had the trial judge conducted this portion
of her analysis correctly, she would (or should) have concluded that there was
a reasonable probability that, absent the defendants wrongful conduct, a
single employer application would have been successful. They argue that if a
single employer application had been successful, the chance of implementing the
merged seniority list would have been more than
de minimis.

Analysis

[81]

In
my view, all of the plaintiffs arguments fail in the face of the trial judges
acceptance of Mr. Harris evidence, her detailed analysis of the circumstances
leading to decertification, and her assessment of the lawfulness of the
defendants actions. I explain my reasoning below in relation to each of the
three arguments advanced.

[82]

The
plaintiffs first argument attempts to characterize what was inherently an
exercise in meticulous fact-finding as an error in principle. Ultimately,
nothing turns on whether the analysis focussed on the chance of implementing
the March Picher Award or the Final Picher Award. Whether the Air Canada MEC
had raised a merged seniority list in the collective bargaining process or
CALPA had sought and won a single employer declaration before negotiating, Air
Canada had to agree to a merged list. Air Canadas opposition to a merged
seniority list pre-dated the March Picher Award. The trial judge was entitled
to accept the evidence of Mr. Harris that he would not have accepted a merged
seniority list. She found that Air Canada would have inevitably rejected a
merged list and that, for this reason alone, the chance of implementing a
merged seniority list did not arise above the
de minimis
threshold.

[83]

In
substantial part, the plaintiffs second argument is rooted in sub-class sixs
efforts to form ACPA and decertify CALPA, efforts the plaintiffs argued were
unlawful. For example, they say that if ACPA had not been formed and CALPA
decertified, the chance of implementing the merged seniority list would have
exceeded the
de minimis
threshold. By way of illustration, they argue
that but for the unlawful conduct of the Air Canada MEC, the March Picher
Award, which set out a framework for a merged seniority list, would have been
mentioned in collective bargaining negotiations with Air Canada and, if ACPA
had not been formed, the negotiations would not have been suspended and the Air
Canada pilots might have been able to fulfill the statutory preconditions to a
legal strike. Moreover, if CALPA had not been decertified, the window within
which to implement the merged seniority list would not have prematurely shut.

[84]

Whether
the plaintiffs chance was more than
de minimis
is essentially a
determination of fact. I concluded, above, that the trial judge correctly found
that the sub-class six defendants conduct in forming ACPA and decertifying
CALPA was lawful. That conclusion reduces the plaintiffs second argument to
one that the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors in finding
that the chance of implementing the merged seniority lists did not rise above a
de minimis
level even without the defendants unlawful conduct.

[85]

I
am not persuaded that the trial judge made any palpable and overriding errors.
Indeed, I agree with her conclusion. She heard months of evidence. She reviewed
the conduct of all the defendants in comprehensive and cogent reasons that
reached 567 paragraphs in length. She clearly understood the implications and
interplay of the conduct at issue, both lawful and unlawful. In the case of the
Air Canada pilots ability to strike that the plaintiffs allude to, the trial
judge explained both that the Merger Policy did not require the Air Canada
pilots to strike to obtain a merged seniority list and that the suspension of
collective bargaining was not the only reason why the Air Canada pilots could
not legally strike to obtain a merged seniority list. The plaintiffs do not
challenge those other reasons the Air Canada pilots could not legally strike to
force Air Canada acceptance of a merged list.

[86]

Each
of the trial judges reasons for concluding that the plaintiffs chance of
implementing the merged seniority list did not exceed the
de minimis
threshold was fully supported by the evidence and is
logically sound
.

[87]

To
put the plaintiffs third argument in context, it is necessary to consider what
the trial judge said about the single employer application. She explained that
it was CALPA and not the Air Canada MEC that had to bring a single employer
application, that CALPA did not do so until March 1996, that six different
unions representing various bargaining units opposed the application, and that
the Board dismissed CALPAs application in December 1999, stating that it failed
utterly.

[88]

At
para. 471, she wrote the passage with which the plaintiffs take issue: It is
not possible or indeed appropriate to second guess [the Boards] decision based
on speculation that it would have been different if supported by the Air Canada
pilots and if the LOU 17 grievance had been pursued. She noted that the Board
had dismissed an Air Canada single employer application in 1989. She concluded
that there was no possibility or probability that a single employer
application would have had a different result but for the Defendants
conduct.

[89]

The
plaintiffs argue that while the trial judge declined to speculate whether the
outcome might have been different, the loss of chance doctrine required exactly
that hypothetical assessment. They say that had she engaged in that assessment,
she would (or should) have concluded that, absent the defendants wrongful
conduct, there was a reasonable probability CALPA would have won a single
employer declaration. They argue that the withdrawal of the LOU 17 grievance
played a crucial role in the failure of the application.

[90]

They
also argue that the trial judge erred in excluding the opinion of their expert,
Professor McLaren, on the basis that it pertained to domestic law. He opined
that had the Air Canada pilots supported a single employer application, it was
highly likely that the Board would have exercised its discretion to grant the
application. The plaintiffs argue that this was an opinion on a matter of fact
(what the Board might have decided under different circumstances) and not law.

[91]

The
plaintiffs argument is flawed. It assumes that the defendants were required to
support a single employer application. The trial judge found, at para. 426,
that [t]he Air Canada MEC was entitled to work to prevent a [single employer]
application and, at para. 467, that the Merger Policy did not call for a
single employer application. Those findings are not challenged on appeal. While
the trial judge was required to consider what would have happened but for the
defendants wrongful conduct, she was not required to speculate about what
would have happened but for lawful conduct. She was correct that it was not appropriate
to second guess [the Boards] decision based on speculation that it would have
been different if supported by the Air Canada pilots and if the LOU 17
grievance had been pursued.

[92]

Professor
McLarens opinion, which assumed the defendants supported a single employer
application, was therefore of no assistance to the plaintiffs.

[93]

I
turn now to the final issue.

VII  ISSUE Four: DID THE TRIAL
JUDGE ERR BY NOT AWARDING Merger Expenses DAMAGES OF $150,280?

[94]

The
fourth element of unlawful act conspiracy required the plaintiffs to establish
that the defendants should have known that injury to the plaintiffs was likely
to result from their unlawful conduct. At para. 442, the trial judge found the
plaintiffs had established the fourth element:

Clearly the Air Canada pilots knew or ought to have known that
the [regional] pilots might have been harmed. They certainly knew or ought to
have known that the Air Ontario pilots were subject to assessments for merger
expenses just as the Air Canada pilots were themselves.

[95]

Elsewhere
in her reasons, the trial judge determined that those merger expenses totalled
$150,280.

[96]

The
plaintiffs argue that once the trial judge found that the merger expenses
constituted an injury to the plaintiffs that the defendants knew or ought to
have known would result from their unlawful conduct, she erred by not, at a
minimum, awarding damages of $150,280.

[97]

I
disagree. I conclude that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the merger
expenses.

[98]

The
trial judges conclusion on loss of chance disposes of the plaintiffs argument.
The plaintiffs had to establish that, but for the defendants wrongful conduct,
the merger expenses they incurred would not have been for naught. The trial
judge concluded that regardless of the defendants wrongful conduct, the merged
seniority list would not have been implemented. Therefore, the defendants by
their wrongful conduct did not cause the merger expenses to come to no end. The
plaintiffs claim for merger expenses fails because they have not established
that the defendants wrongful conduct caused the loss of those expenses.

VIII  DISPOSITION

[99]

For
the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss this appeal. The parties agreed that the
successful party on this appeal would be entitled to costs in the amount of
$175,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST. I would accordingly order the
plaintiffs to pay such amount to the defendants.

[100]

The
Third Party Respondent, ALPA, did not seek costs and shall not be entitled to
them.

Released: AH  JUN 19
2015

Alexandra
Hoy A.C.J.O.

I
agree David Watt J.A.

I
agree David Brown J.A.

[1]
See s. 38(1) of the
Canada Labour Code
, which provides a statutory
right to decertify a bargaining agent:

Where a trade union has been
certified as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, any employee who
claims to represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit may,
subject to subsection (5), apply to the Board for an order revoking the
certification of that trade union.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Canada Forgings Inc. v. Riverside
    Excavating (Niagara) Ltd., 2015 ONCA 433

DATE: 20150615

DOCKET: C58547

MacPherson, Epstein and Roberts JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Canada Forgings Inc.

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Riverside Excavating (Niagara) Ltd.,
International Marine Salvage
    Inc.
and Remo
    Benedetti Jr.

Defendants (Appellant)

Michael Bordin, for the appellant

Alan J. Butcher, for the respondent

Heard: June 11, 2015

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Dale Parayeski of
    the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 26, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The appellant International Marine Salvage Inc. (IMS) appeals from the
    judgment of Parayeski J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 26,
    2014, granting judgment to the respondent Canada Forgings Inc. (CF) in the
    amount of $270,735 for committing the tort of conversion of several very large
    metal die blocks.

[2]

The appellant does not appeal the trial judges conclusion that it
    committed the tort of conversion. It does appeal, on three grounds, the trial
    judges damages assessment.

[3]

First, the appellant contends that the trial judge erred in awarding
    replacement costs for the 26 missing die blocks. It says that the trial judge
    did not distinguish between missing die blocks that were actually replaced by
    CF (four in number) and die blocks which have never been replaced and never
    would be (the 26 for which the trial judge awarded damages). If the trial judge
    had made this distinction, the proper measure of damages would have been the
    value of the die blocks as scrap metal.

[4]

We do not accept this submission. The die blocks were an unusual,
    bordering on unique, product. The trial judge described them in this fashion:

The die blocks in this case are heavy, sometimes weighing
    thousands of pounds. Once used, the pairs of blocks are stored outside. If they
    have not been irreparably damaged in the forging process, they may be reused if
    the same part is reordered by a customer. They may also be reused by flooding
    the cut impressions so that clean faces are restored, and into which new cuts
    can be made which correspond to new parts.

The evidence is that the plaintiff stores die blocks, sometimes
    not actually using them for decades, because doing so makes business sense.

The evidence is that the die blocks have utility as described.
    They were in useable condition. Although they were stored outdoors, the
    evidence was that this does not cause them to materially deteriorate. They were
    oiled to protect them to some extent, and were labelled with recorded numbers.

[5]

In short, CFs storage yard was not a dumping ground for obsolete,
    useless die blocks. It was not the equivalent of an automobile or old tire
    graveyard site. The die blocks were stored, not buried, on CFs yard. They were
    cared for, inventoried, arranged in rows, and numbered. It is true that they
    might not be used for many years. And it might turn out that some of them would
    never be used. But all of them were useable and there was evidence that some of
    them were in fact used. It follows that the trial judge did not err by awarding
    damages on the basis of replacement cost.

[6]

Second, the appellant submits that the trial judge misapprehended the
    evidence and committed a palpable and overriding error in finding that IMS
    purchased approximately 90% of the missing die blocks.

[7]

We disagree. The trial judge reviewed the evidence and reached these conclusions:

I am satisfied on the plaintiffs evidence that it is more
    likely than not that Remo Benedetti Jr. was the only thief involved.

I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that IMS was the
    only recipient of the stolen dies.

[8]

In our view, the evidence supports his conclusions. In any event, the
    important legal point is that they are far removed from being palpable and
    overriding errors.

[9]

Third, the appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in compensating
    CF $7500 for lost time and productivity as a result of IMSs conversion of CFs
    die blocks.

[10]

We
    are not persuaded by this submission.

[11]

In
    its Notice of Appeal, the appellant stated that the trial judge made six
    factual and legal errors. An error relating to the validity and quantum of
    reimbursement for CFs employees costs connected to the conversion of the die
    blocks is not one of those errors. In any event, we see, as did the trial
    judge, a direct connection between these employee costs and IMSs receipt of
    the stolen die blocks which is the basis for the now uncontested finding that
    IMS committed the tort of conversion. As the trial judge accepted, CFs
    employees engaged in activities to investigate and substantiate this loss
    rather than doing their usual duties.

[12]

We
    make a final observation. On all three issues, the trial judge made a very
    careful analysis, often against the backdrop of a sparse and difficult
    evidentiary landscape. On each issue, the trial judge found in favour of CF and
    awarded damages  but in each instance significantly below the amount sought by
    CF. In other words, his damages award strikes us as carefully considered and
    fair.

[13]

The
    appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to its costs of the appeal
    fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

J.C. MacPherson J.A.

Gloria Epstein J.A.

L.B. Roberts J.A.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Chairman's Brands Corp. v. Association of
    Danube-Swabians,

2015 ONCA 435

DATE: 20150615

DOCKET: C59783 and C59784

Simmons, Cronk and Blair JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Chairmans Brands Corp.

Appellant

and

Association of Danube-Swabians

Respondent in Appeal

Constantine Alexiou, for the appellant

Wendy Greenspoon-Soer, for the respondent

Heard: June 12, 2015

On appeal from the order of Justice F. Myers of the
    Superior Court of Justice, dated November 19, 2014.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

Order to go as per draft order filed, as amended.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Cheung v.
    Shuen, 2015 ONCA 403

DATE: 20150604

DOCKET: M44676 (C59833)

Juriansz, Lauwers and Huscroft JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Kin
    Kwok Cheung aka K.K. Cheung,

CToday
    TV Broadcasting Corporation

and China Economy
    International Corp.

Plaintiffs/Defendants
    by Counterclaim

(Respondents)

and

Piera
    Shuen aka Sau Har Ip and

Chinese Culture TV of
    Canada CCTV Inc. (CCCTV)

Defendants/Plaintiffs
    by Counterclaim

(Appellants)

Chi-Kun Shi, for the appellants (defendants)

Shaun Laubman, for respondents

Heard: June 2, 2015

On appeal from the order of Justice Laurence Pattillo of
    the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 9, 2014.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]

The respondents motion to quash the appeal is granted. The order under
    appeal is interlocutory. The order struck certain paragraphs of the statement
    of defence as scandalous, frivolous and irrelevant. It did not dispose of any
    substantive defence. This court is without jurisdiction to entertain the
    appeal.

[2]

Costs of the motion and the appeal are fixed in the amount of $18,000 as
    agreed by counsel, all inclusive.