Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

1. Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang, 2014 ONCA 883

[55] A current mortgage balance is not publicly available information. Just because the legislature chose to make the details of a mortgage publicly available at the beginning of the mortgage relationship does not strip a mortgage balance during the course of a mortgage relationship of the sensitivity it would ordinarily have – a sensitivity for which implying consent to disclosure would be inappropriate. As the Supreme Court said in the Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) case: “The ability of individuals to control their personal information is intimately connected to their individual autonomy, dignity and privacy.”
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

2. Trillium Motor World Ltd. v General Motors of Canada Limited, 2015 ONSC 3824

[587] In closing argument, Trillium urged me to award damages in the amount of $375 to $425 million; Cassels maintained that no money ought to be paid because the downside risk to productively negotiating with GMCL far outweighed the chance it could occur. Once again, while I have found the evidence of the experts useful in marshalling the documentary evidence of GMCL, I am not persuaded that I ought to rely on it in assessing damages. I am in a much better position than the experts, having heard all of the evidence and having seen all of the documents produced at trial.

[588] I have assessed the value of the dealers’ lost opportunity at $50 million, and for the reasons below, award the Class Members $45 million in damages.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

3. Singh v Trump, 2015 ONSC 4461

[228] The Estimates are expressed to be “for discussion purposes” and “not a guaranteed investment program.” Mr. Singh and the Lees knew that all investments are risky. The risky nature of the transaction was pointed out to them repeatedly. The Disclosure Documents directed by the OSC warned of the risks associated with the investment. Before entering into the Agreements of Purchase and Sale, as prospective purchasers, they would have known that they would be provided with: disclosure documents, a cooling off period under the Condominium Act, 1998 to withdraw from the transaction and a renewed right to withdraw should the developer make material changes to the Disclosure Documents. Mr. Singh and the Lees had an opportunity to do their own due diligence and to consult with lawyers and investment advisers. With these various warnings, protections, and rights, it is not and would not have been objectively reasonable for the purchasers to rely on the Estimates as the basis for a decision to sign Agreements of Purchase and Sale for a purchase that they knew was a risky financial investment.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

The most-consulted French-language decision was Premier Tech ltée c. Dollo, 2015 QCCA 1159

[20] Je suis d’avis que Dollo, en sa qualité d’actionnaire et d’ancien actionnaire de Premier Tech, a fait la preuve d’une attente légitime, celle découlant de la promesse que lui ont faite les dirigeants de Premier Tech, soit qu’il allait pouvoir exercer ses options d’achat d’actions malgré la rupture de son lien d’emploi. En refusant de respecter cette promesse, Premier Tech s’est montrée injuste envers Dollo.
(Check for commentary on CanLII Connects)

* As of January 2014 we measure the total amount of time spent on the pages rather than simply the number of hits; as well, a case once mentioned won’t appear again for three months.

Comments are closed.