Decisions

Keep up to date on the latest Commercial List decisions.

The decisions below represent all Commercial List matters published on CanLII in the last year. This list will be updated every week. 
Decisions
  • keywords: Procedure — Arbitration — Appeals under Arbitration Act, 1991 — Leave to appeal — Whether alleged reconciliation errors are questions of law under s. 45 — Southam and Teal Cedar applied to distinguish law from mixed fact and law — Strategic reframing of factual findings rejected — Importance and significant effect thresholds not met — Leave to appeal dismissed | Procedure — Arbitration — Set‑aside — Section 46(1) — Whether conduct was “sufficiently egregious to offend basic notions of morality and justice” — Deference to arbitral process affirmed, Consolidated Contractors, Fuego Digital cited — Thorough, even‑handed awards found basically fair — No procedural breach meeting high bar — Application to set aside dismissed | Procedure — Arbitration — Recognition and enforcement — Section 50 — Should the court enforce the June Award, Injunction Award, Haulage Award and costs awards? — High deference to arbitral outcomes and limited appellate intervention reaffirmed — No basis to refuse enforcement identified — Amounts ordered payable within specified time — Awards enforced | Procedure — Arbitration — Jurisdiction and remedies — Injunctive relief — Did the Arbitrator exceed jurisdiction by affecting non‑parties? — Orders directed to party’s own conduct and undertakings, no adjudication of third‑party rights — Standard injunction test applied on full record — No jurisdictional overreach found — Challenge dismissed

    CanLII | Jun 17, 2026

  • keywords: Limitation periods — Acknowledgement and partial payment — Limitations Act, 2002 — Are claims on notes and guarantees time‑barred? — Receivership proceedings begun within two years for corporate instruments — Partial payments by court‑appointed receivers under s. 13(11) — Acknowledgement of personal note under s. 13(1) and emails — Contractual extension in business agreements under s. 22(5) — Limitations defence dismissed | Contracts — Promissory notes and guarantees — Alleged obstruction of sale under Retail project — Whether failure to cooperate in unit sale defeats payment obligations — Clear no set‑off and enforceability clauses in Retail Note — Term Sheet conditions precedent not incorporated into final note — No credible evidence of ready, willing and able buyer or financing — Defence rejected — Judgment granted | Civil liability — Economic torts and fiduciary duties — Alleged bad faith in 180 SAW negotiations — Do alleged breaches of fiduciary duty or good faith negate liability under clear notes and guarantees? — Prior civil claims struck without leave — No set‑off clauses bar unliquidated counterclaims — Vague, unsubstantiated allegations insufficient — No genuine issue to be tried — Defence dismissed | Contracts — Guarantees — Exhaustion of recourse condition precedent — Were demands on personal guarantees premature for failure to exhaust recourse? — Security enforced through court‑appointed receivers, assets sold, distributions made — Allocation dispute unrelated to realization — Receiver discharged in SAW project — Nothing further to exhaust against borrowers — Objection of prematurity rejected — Judgment granted

    CanLII | Jun 15, 2026

  • keywords: Bankruptcy and insolvency — CCAA plan interpretation — Security for costs — Whether funds released from security for costs are “Subsequent Cash on Hand” — New funding agreement replaces Litigation Funding and Indemnity Reserve — Para. 3.4 directs payment to Cash Store for stakeholders — Plain and ordinary meaning applied — Funds released from Canaccord security treated as Subsequent Cash on Hand — Distribution to Secured Noteholders confirmed | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Priorities — Post-filing claims — Do post-filing claims for costs have priority over payments required by the Plan — No basis to grant enhanced priority to post-filing claims generally — s. 7.5 preserves rights but not priority over express Plan terms — Pike v. Bel-Tronics Co. considered — Priority claim to costs rejected | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Officers of the court — Monitor — Whether the Monitor’s fees and disbursements should be approved — Detailed invoices reviewed — Costs come from recovery otherwise payable to Secured Noteholders — Secured Noteholders consent to costs claimed — Costs found reasonable and approved — Monitor fees and disbursements approved | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Court supervision — Monitor — Should the Court approve the Monitor’s historical activities and grant discharge and releases — No beneficial purpose to approving activities after plan approval and end of litigation — Limitation periods expired — Order signed except paragraph regarding approval of activities — Approval of activities refused, discharge and releases granted

    CanLII | Jun 10, 2026

  • keywords: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Court‑approved sale — Approval and Vesting Order — Soundair factors applied to receivership sale — Whether the Receiver’s SISP and marketing were fair and transparent — Highest and best offer accepted after competitive process — Broad deference to Receiver’s commercial decisions noted — Approval and Vesting Order granted | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Disclaimer of agreements — Pre‑sale unit purchase agreements — Jurisdiction to disclaim UPAs in real estate receivership — Forjay Management factors and Constantine Enterprises applied — Priority positions and enhancement of value analysed — Whether failure to disclaim would create a preference — Disclaimers authorized | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Receivership protocols — Deposit return protocol — Authority under BIA, s. 243(1)(c) to approve practical measures — Whether DRP should be approved to ensure orderly and efficient returns — Tarion and Westmount consulted and supportive — Comparable protocols previously approved — Deposit return protocol approved | Procedure — Sealing orders — Commercially sensitive sale materials — Sierra Club test as modified by Sherman Estate — Whether time‑limited sealing over bid summaries and unredacted APS is justified — Integrity of SISP and maximization of recovery considered — Limited, specific and temporary sealing sought — Sealing order granted

    CanLII | Jun 5, 2026

  • keywords: Procedure — Applications — Conversion to action — Whether application should be converted to an action given alleged material facts and credibility issues — Principles from Collins v. Canada, V2 Investment and Obolus applied — Complex issues alone insufficient — Material facts must be unresolvable on the application record — Motion brought before responding evidence — Conversion to action dismissed | Procedure — Applications — Consolidation — Whether oppression application should be consolidated with employment actions — Distinction between central oppression issue and separate wrongful dismissal claims — Different claims and remedies identified — Rule 38.10(1)(b) discretion noted and deferral to application judge endorsed — Consolidation refused | Evidence — Affidavits — Weight and credibility — Whether Respondents’ affidavit establishes credibility disputes requiring a trial — Affidavit containing conclusory assertions and hearsay challenged — Source of information often not identified — No clear credibility issues articulated — Insufficient evidentiary basis to require viva voce evidence — Credibility concerns not established

    CanLII | Jun 4, 2026

  • keywords: Procedure — Costs — Fixing of costs — Rule 57.01 and Boucher — Court’s broad discretion — Whether amounts claimed are fair and reasonable — Importance, complexity and success considered — Partial indemnity scale applied — Multiple motions assessed individually — Offers to settle and consent orders weighed — Costs fixed for each motion — Costs fixed across motions | Procedure — Costs on consent — Settlement except for costs — Whether costs should be awarded when a motion is resolved on consent — Muskala considered and distinguished — Right to seek costs reserved — Consent provided after costs were incurred — Partial indemnity award appropriate in circumstances — Proportional and efficient use of court time addressed — Costs awarded | Procedure — Divided success — Allocation of costs — How to account for substantial success on the only contested issue — Directions on refusals and privilege — Privilege review counsel appointed and documents produced — Some categories denied — Claimed fees reduced to reflect mixed outcome — No costs where success divided on preliminary motion — Costs partly awarded and partly no costs | Procedure — Mareva Orders — Motion to vary — Entitlement to costs for successful moving parties — Credit Valley framework referenced — Importance and complexity recognised — Unsuccessful moving party treated separately — Offset applied against global award — Partial indemnity scale — Amount within reasonable range without costs outline — Net costs ordered after offset — Costs awarded with offset

    CanLII | Jun 3, 2026

  • keywords: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Court‑appointed receivers — Approval of activities and fees — Should the Receiver’s activities, fees, distributions, discharge process and release be approved — Fourth Report reviewed, priorities applied, holdback maintained — Release tracks appointment order protection, gross negligence or wilful misconduct excepted — Supervision and stakeholder input recognised — Hangfen Evergreen cited on approval purposes — Costs fixed against opposing guarantor — Orders approving activities, fees, distributions and discharge process granted | Bankruptcy and insolvency — Bankruptcy assignments — Appointment of Receiver as Trustee in Bankruptcy — Should the Receiver assign the debtor into bankruptcy and serve as Trustee despite alleged conflict — Reviewable transactions and insolvency identified — Efficiency from historic involvement favoured — Creditors’ desire considered — Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act scheme engaged — Potential conflict manageable by creditor oversight — Authorisation to assign into bankruptcy and appoint Receiver as Trustee granted | Procedure — Vexatious proceedings — Vexatious litigant order — Can s. 140 CJA relief be sought by motion under Rule 2.2 and is it justified — Rule 2.2.03 permits motion procedure — Lang Michener factors met — Persistent relitigation and ignoring prior rulings — Corporate litigation directed by sole officer captured per Lenczner Slaght — Leave to proceed requirement confined to related people and issues — Vexatious litigant declaration issued | Professional responsibility — Conflicts of interest — Receiver’s counsel — Do counsel’s multiple roles create a conflict affecting the receivership and sale — “Structural conflict” term rejected — Green Advocacy and Manis Law acted solely for the Receiver — Independent security opinions appropriate — No conflict from closing through creditor’s counsel trust account — Harmony of aligned interests distinguished from conflicting duties — Conflict of interest alleged, none found

    CanLII | Jun 2, 2026

  • keywords: Procedure — Confidentiality on discovery — Whether disclosure of identities of third party funders poses a material risk — Unchallenged affidavits describing actions by the KSA government at the behest of MBS considered — Association with the defendants found to create safety risk — Material risk to personal safety and security established — Non-disclosure ordered | Procedure — Protective orders — What order should be made regarding identity information under a counsels’ eyes only agreement — Divisional Court remittal noted — Names already provided to counsel only — Direction that identity information remain with counsel and not be disclosed to the Plaintiffs — Counsel’s eyes only maintained | Procedure — Discovery and disclosure — Whether absence of evidence that the Plaintiffs would relay information is a sufficient assurance — Risk that identities could become known to high‑ranking individuals in the KSA government found — Assurance held insufficient given safety and security concerns — Disclosure to the Plaintiffs denied | Procedure — Mareva Orders — Balancing prejudice on motion to vary — Potential prejudice to third party funders from disclosure weighed against Plaintiffs’ interest — With disclosure limited to legal counsel, balance favoured continued non‑disclosure to the Plaintiffs — Directions on questions about living expenses upheld — Plaintiffs’ disclosure request refused

    CanLII | Jun 2, 2026

  • keywords: Procedure — Prejudgment interest — Start date — Whether Obelysk’s cause of action arose on enactment of the 2013 Transfer Framework — Quadrangle start date aligned with damages assessment to avoid double counting — Courts of Justice Act, ss. 127, 128 — Prejudgment interest rate identified as of relevant dates — Start dates fixed for each plaintiff — Start dates determined | Procedure — Prejudgment interest — Rate — Should the applicable rate be averaged over a lengthy period with fluctuating market rates — Presumptive statutory rate under ss. 127 and 128 reaffirmed — Discretion under s. 130 applied with Aubin, Cobb and Graham — Fluctuations not significant on the facts — Averaging declined — Statutory rate applied | Procedure — Prejudgment interest — Compounding — Should interest be calculated on a compounded rather than simple basis — Statutory bar on interest on interest, s. 128(4)(b) — Bank of America, Enbridge, McFlow considered — No wrongful retention or evidence of consequential damages — Expert calculations used simple interest — Compounded prejudgment interest refused | Procedure — Prejudgment interest — Reduction of period — Whether plaintiffs’ conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding warranting a shorter interest period under s. 130(2)(f) — Complex claim and amendments not egregious — Estimated delay not proven or particularised — Interest not a punitive measure — Reduction of three and a half years rejected — Reduction denied

    CanLII | Jun 1, 2026

  • keywords: Business associations — Plans of arrangement — Canada Business Corporations Act approval — Whether the Arrangement complies with statutory requirements, is brought in good faith, and is fair and reasonable — Stakeholder approvals and fairness opinion weighed against insolvency alternatives — Commercial List oversight and Interim Order compliance confirmed — Final Order approving Arrangement granted | Securities — Secondary market disclosure — Material change — Whether alleged failure to disclose a material change warrants a carve-out from releases — Leave requirement under Securities Act, s. 138.8, and Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39 — Context of negotiations and completeness of February press release assessed — Carve-out request dismissed | Securities — Related party transactions — Assessment — Should the Arrangement be treated as a related party transaction under securities law? — OSC staff review noted and definitions of related party applied — Absence of ownership, control or direction over more than 10 percent established — Related party objection rejected | Business associations — Releases and waivers — Fairness in CBCA arrangement — Are the scope and nature of the releases and the Waiver fair and reasonable in context? — Restructuring alternatives, stakeholder impact, and routine nature of such provisions considered — Efficiency versus receivership or multi‑jurisdictional liquidation addressed — Approval of releases and Waiver confirmed

    CanLII | Jun 1, 2026

Show more (1128)