Marcotte v. City of Longueuil, 2007 CanLII 55341 (S.C.C.A.)
Tax – Reimbursement of Illegal Taxes – Class Action – Certification
Marie Audren, Emmanuelle Rolland, Daniel Jutras and Georges Thibaudeau for the Plaintiffs

BLG has obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a decision rendered by the Court of Appeal of Quebec denying certification of a class action. The Plaintiff wishes to institute a class action against the City of Longueuil in order to have a tax by-law declared invalid and obtain the reimbursement of taxes paid. The Supreme Court decision will determine if class actions can be used to obtain the reimbursement of taxes illegally levied by a government body.

STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Matrox Graphics Inc. and Hewlett-Packard France, Quebec Court of Appeal, December 18, 2007 Breach of Contract – Breach of Warranty – Enforcement of Jurisdiction Clause – Ambiguous Terms
Isabelle Desharnais for Hewlett-Packard France

HP France commenced an action in Montreal against a graphics card manufacturer (Matrox) alleging that the cards supplied by Matrox to HP France were defective. The suit claims damages of over $20,000,000. Matrox responded to the lawsuit by calling on the warranty on the cards provided by STMicroelectronics. STMicroelectronics applied to the Quebec Superior Court for dismissal of the warranty action because the Purchase Orders issued to Matrox for the relevant cards provided that all claims should be made before the courts in Texas. The Superior Court dismissed this request and STMicroelectronics appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s lengthy decision reviews in detail the conditions for the formation of a contract, rules of interpretation of ambiguous provisions, and jurisdiction clauses. The appeal was dismissed. BLG contested STMicroelectronics’ appeal on behalf of HP France, since it was advantageous for HP France to have STMicroelectronics remain as a party to the action.

Baksh v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, December 11, 2007
Real Estate and Business Brokers Act – Revocation of Licence – Real Estate Salesperson
Freya Kristjanson for the Registrar

The Appellant’s registration as a real estate salesperson was revoked in January 2007 on reasonable grounds to suspect that he would not carry out his duties with the required integrity and honesty. The Appellant had failed to disclose a beneficial interest to the parties involved in three separate transactions.

The appeal was dismissed. While the tribunal had erred in referring to a section of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act that was not in force at the time of the Appellant’s conduct, his conduct nevertheless violated the similar section applicable at the time. The Court found that the tribunal’s decision was reasonable and it had considered all relevant evidence. The Registrar was awarded its costs.

Bistany v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, December 17, 2007
Real Estate and Business Brokers Act – Revocation of Licence – Real Estate Broker
Freya Kristjanson for the Registrar

This was an appeal of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s revocation of Mr. Bistany’s registration as a real estate broker on the grounds that he could not be financially responsible for the business and on reasonable grounds to believe that he would not conduct his business with the required honesty and integrity. Mr. Bistany was an undischarged bankrupt and had been convicted of one count of fraud and another of obstructing a person performing an investigation, offences under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. These convictions were under appeal but the tribunal refused to stay the appeal of the registration revocation pending the outcome of the offence proceedings. The propriety of that decision was the main issue on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court held that the tribunal had the discretion to continue with the appeal despite the outstanding offence proceedings and refused to interfere with that discretion, it having been exercised after giving Mr. Bistany a chance to present argument on the point. As for the merits of the revocation, Mr. Bistany had presented ample evidence to contest that decision and the tribunal concluded that revocation of his licence was appropriate. The Court saw no reason to disturb the decision and the appeal was dismissed.

McLaine v. London Life Insurance Company et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, December 18, 2007
Class Actions – Certification – Standard of Review
Marty Sclisizzi, Freya Kristjanson and Heather Pessione for the Bank of Nova Scotia, Scotia Mortgage Corporation and Bank of Montreal

This was an appeal by several individuals (all employees, lawyers or clients of an Ottawa law firm) from a decision refusing to certify eight different class actions in which the Plaintiffs alleged that the financial institution Defendants had misinterpreted standard mortgage terms relating to annual payment on account of principal or the partial prepayment right and the early mortgage discharge provision. The court of first instance found that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet any part of the test under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6 (the 'CPA'). While the types of provisions were common to the financial institution Defendants’ standard form mortgages, the particular provision language was different in each case. Similar proceedings had already been commenced and certified by consent in three unrelated actions. The principal of the law firm, Mr. Farah, had encouraged all of these parties to commence their actions. The Defendants argued that there would be no actions had Mr. Farrah not suggested them, and that certification would result in much increased time, complexity and cost in order to trace viable claimants such that the decision to deny certification was justifiable.

The first issue was the applicable standard of review, which the Appellants argued was correctness and the Respondents argued required some deference, relying on Moyes v. Fortune Financial Corp. The Court agreed with the Respondents. It then went on to consider whether it was proper to have heard and determined all eight proceedings at the same time. The Court found that it was appropriate given that the same type of breach of contract was alleged, despite the factual differences between the cases. The Court also approved of the judge’s criticisms of the involvement of Mr. Farah and his associate in getting the actions off the ground, finding that this was an important factor in deciding whether the claims would meet s. 5(1) of the CPA. Finally, the Court agreed that the specific requirements of s. 5(1) of the CPA had not been met, in that the claims advanced no cause of action, the claimants did not fall within an identifiable class, the claims did not involve sufficiently common issues, class proceedings were not the preferable way to determine the common issues, and that the representative plaintiffs were inappropriate. The fact that there was no workable litigation plan was a problem, and the fact that the causes of action were based on implied terms in many different mortgages was also an important factor in the certification denial, since whether or not the terms alleged could be implied is very dependent on each Plaintiff’s individual circumstances. The Divisional Court made its decision despite the release after the appeal was argued of Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank certifying a class action with respect to claims based on VISA card charges. It distinguished that decision on the basis that only one bank was named and the claim related to a specific set of foreign exchange transactions that could be easily identified.

Summit Staging Ltd. v. 596373 B.C. Ltd., 2007 BCSC 1782
Summary Trial – Suitability of – Credibility – Real Estate
Stephen Antle and Maryam Sherkat for Summit Staging Ltd.

This was an application by the realtor Defendants for judgment by way of summary trial in a case involving allegations surrounding the sale of a property owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants breached their contract, their duty of care and their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff by arranging to sell a piece of property owned by the Plaintiff at lower than its value and at a very high commission. The Plaintiff’s representative had signed sale documents setting out the sale price and the commission, which the Defendants claimed disposed of the case in its entirety.

The Court agreed with the Plaintiff that it would be unjust to resolve the matter on a summary trial. The Defendants had attempted to get around credibility issues by relying, in cases of conflict on the evidence, on the answers provided by the Plaintiff on discovery. However, the judge noted there remained important questions to be resolved. He dismissed the application and awarded costs to the Plaintiff.

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia and Canada, 2007 BCSC 1700
First Nations – Aboriginal Title – Treaty Negotiation – Crown Duties
Ken Tyler, Pat Foy, Stephanie Lysyk, Jason Murray, Brad Dixon, Scott Kerwin, Michelle Maniago and Kylie Walman for the Attorney General of British Columbia

In this case, the Plaintiff First Nations Band sought a binding declaration respecting Aboriginal title claims to 4,380 square kilometres of land in the interior of British Columbia situated about 200 kilometres north of Vancouver by air. The case was commenced in the early 1990s by the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation (pop. circa 400), one of six or seven Indian bands that comprise the Tsilhqot’in Nation (pop. circa 3,000). The Aboriginal title claims of the other Tsilhqot’in Indian Bands are outstanding. The claimed area represents about 50% of the Xeni Gwet’in’s 'traditional territory' and 5 to 10% of the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory.

The Court agreed with the Province’s position that the Tsilhqot’in Nation had to make its claim to the entire area and, as a result, it declined to make a legally binding declaration of Aboriginal title. However, as an alternative to a declaration, the judge identified those lands that he considered to be Aboriginal title lands. He described his comments and findings as non-binding and as intended to aid the process of reconciliation between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown.

The Court also drew certain conclusions about the application of provincial laws to Aboriginal title lands, which call into question whether any provincial legislation involving land use planning or resource management can apply. The judge recognized the 'serious implications' of his ruling, but stressed the need for the federal Crown to reaffirm its 'central role' in the relationship with Aboriginal Canadians.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation’s $100 million damages claim, for wrongful infringements of its Aboriginal title, was dismissed without prejudice to their right to seek damages in a future case. The case also leaves open the effect of underlying Aboriginal title on third party rights derived from provincial authority, such as fee simple titles, licences, and tenures.

Finally, the judge held that the provincial Limitation Act could not apply to Aboriginal title claims, or else the Province would effectively be allowed to extinguish Aboriginal title. The judgment follows a trial that took 339 days between November 2002 and April 2007.

Yeung v. Kay, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 10, 2007
Health Care Consent Act – Consent and Capacity Board – Meaning of 'Capacity'
Kirsten Crain for Dr. Kay

This was an appeal by Mr. Yeung of a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board under the Health Care Consent Act finding him incapable of making treatment decisions regarding the administration of antipsychotic medication. The Supreme Court of Canada had analyzed what 'capacity' meant in this context in the 2003 decision of Starson v. Swayze and held that it involves two criteria: (1) a cognitive ability to process, retain and understand the information regarding treatment, and (2) the ability to appreciate the consequences of treatment or lack of treatment. The parties agreed that the standard of review for the Board’s decision was one of correctness. However, the Appellant argued that the Board had erred in having referred to Mr. Yeung’s 'insight' into his condition, and that he need only recognize the possibility that he was suffering from a mental illness to have the necessary capacity to make relevant treatment decisions. The Court found that this challenge was based on an isolated aspect of the Board’s decision. Rather, the whole of the language in the decision needed to be considered and the Court found that it evidenced the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s criteria. It held that the Board’s decision was not only reasonable but was most appropriate in the circumstances and dismissed the appeal.

Oz Merchandising Inc. v. Canadian Professional Soccer League, Eastern Ontario District Soccer Association, and Ontario Soccer Association et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 13, 2007
Costs – Substantial Indemnity Costs
Jane Bachynski and Nadia Effendi for Eastern Ontario District Soccer Association and Ontario Soccer Association

Following from the BLG victory in this case reported in the December 2007 edition of BLG On Its Feet, this was a decision regarding the costs payable to the successful parties on an appeal of an order striking pleadings. BLG argued that its clients were entitled to substantial indemnity costs and for the costs ordered at a prior motion that had yet to be paid. The Appellant had argued that only partial indemnity costs were appropriate on the basis that success on the appeal was divided and sought a fixed costs award of $2,500 without citing any authority. The Court indicated that it must look at what is reasonable in the circumstances and to the expectations of the parties in fixing a costs award. It found that the Respondents had been entirely successful and that the appeal had been complex. As such, it awarded a lump sum only slightly less than the amount of substantial indemnity costs BLG was seeking.

Good Life Corp. v. Hazeldean Properties Inc., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 17, 2007
Landlord and Tenant – Parking Covenant – Access to Parking
Mary Sclisizzi and Brendan Wong for the Respondent Bank of Nova Scotia

This action involved the interpretation of non-exclusive parking space provisions in leases granted by Hazeldean Properties to certain tenants. The Bank of Nova Scotia ('BNS') was another tenant in the complex at issue that was granted exclusive use of a number of parking spaces, reducing the number of spaces available to the other tenants, and had put up signage to that effect. Good Life sought declaratory relief relating to its parking rights and injunctive relief requiring removal of the exclusive parking space signage. The Good Life lease parking covenant stated that Good Life 'shall have unlimited access to Parking at the Property for its members and staff at no extra cost. The Landlord [Hazeldean Properties] shall not reduce the available spaces for Tenant parking available at the commencement of the Lease…'. Good Life argued that 'unlimited access to Parking' meant unlimited access to all parking spaces at the Property. It also claimed that it now needed access to 200 of the property’s 275 total parking spaces.

The Court first found that Good Life’s position that it needed 200 spaces lacked commercial reality and found that access in the context of the lease should be interpreted as access to the property generally rather than guaranteeing access to a certain number of spaces. The Court noted that there was nothing in the Good Life lease setting out its parking needs specifically, which it could have done in the negotiation stages, and that parking rights are normally licence rights rather than any interest in real property. It held that Hazeldean Properties had not breached its covenant because Good Life did have 'access' to parking spaces despite the fact that some were for the exclusive use of other tenants. The Court noted that it need not comment on the application for injunctive relief given its decision on the initial issue, but did comment that injunctive relief would not be appropriate against BNS and another tenant with exclusive parking rights because it would impair Hazeldean Properties’ contractual relationship with those other tenants and impose far greater a burden on BNS and the other tenant’s rights than could justify the corresponding benefit to Good Life. A subsidiary application claiming that Hazeldean Properties had not provided 'adequate' parking was also dismissed.

Armadale Square Inc. and The Great West Life Assurance Company v. A&P Properties Limited, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 19, 2007
Landlord and Tenant – Proportionate Share of Taxes – Rectification
Barry Bresner and Christina Litt for the Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs (the former owner and owner, respectively, of the property in issue) leased certain shopping mall space to the Defendant to operate a supermarket. A dispute arose regarding the share of realty taxes to be paid by A&P. The lease under a provision entitled 'Shopping Centre Operating Costs and Taxes' stated that the tenant would pay to the Landlord 'the Tenant’s proportionate share of Operating Costs and the Tenant’s share of the Taxes assessed against or attributable to the Centre'. The Plaintiffs argued that this required the Defendant to pay taxes based on the proportionate share of the store’s area, or in the alternative that the agreement should be rectified to impose this clarification. The Defendant pointed to the absence of the word 'proportional' vis-à-vis the obligation to pay taxes and stated that its share of taxes should instead be based on the market value of the supermarket. Two of the centre’s other tenants paid realty taxes on a proportional value basis. The lease was entered into in the context of recent changes to the legislation relating to assessment of property taxes, which allowed for taxes to be calculated on a square footage or value basis.

The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs’ position. It noted that there was little dispute between the parties about the facts of the case. Rather, the dispute related to the parties’ subjective interpretation of the lease. In interpreting the meaning of the words 'share of the taxes assessed against or attributable to the centre', the Court had regard to the agreement as a whole and the circumstances surrounding its execution. It noted that while determining taxes owing based on market value was commercially reasonable, there was no mechanism in the lease to make that calculation, whereas square footage could easily be used. The Court would not have granted rectification of the agreement if it had concluded that the lease did not provide for proportional sharing of taxes based on square footage.

Iroquois Falls Community Credit Union v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 20, 2007
Fidelity Bonds – Fraud and Dishonesty – Notice – Indirect Loss – Loans and Overdraft Exclusion
Jane Bachynski and Derek Leschinsky for the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment in an action arising from a denial of payment on a fidelity bond issued by the Defendants on a claim related to the fraudulent actions of the Plaintiff’s general manager. The parties agreed that the wrongful acts had in fact occurred, and in fact were admitted by the perpetrators. However, the Defendants denied the bond claim on the bases that: (a) the wrongful acts were 'unfaithful performance' rather than 'dishonesty' or 'fraud' under the bond; (b) the Plaintiff had not provided notice within the time period specified in the bond; and (c) much of the loss fell within the indirect loss and loans and overdraft exclusions in the bond.

The Plaintiff’s were successful on the application. The Court first found that to interpret the wrongdoers’ actions in this case as 'unfaithful performance' rather than fraud or dishonesty would remove any commercial value from the bond, the form of which had been issued to approximately 175 different credit unions. Rather, 'unfaithful performance' in the bond related to conduct that falls short of dishonesty, and the fact that the perpetrators’ actions were unfaithful performance as well as fraudulent and dishonest did not remove the application of the fraud and dishonesty provisions of the bond. Secondly, the Court found that while some of the facts relating to the wrongdoers’ conduct did come to the attention of the Board of the Plaintiff sometime prior to the report, it did not know the nature of the loss and, thus, did not know that the actions may result in a claim under the bond until a significant client’s bankruptcy caused the president of the Plaintiff to review several credit union records. The bonding company was notified approximately two weeks later. Finally, the Court determined that the exclusions in the bond cited generally did not apply. It granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff on the basis that there was no genuine issue for trial and there were no credibility issues that would prevent summary judgment from issuing. The Plaintiff was awarded all of its claimed loss other than the interest and service charges on certain overdrafts and extensions of credit that the wrongdoers authorized improperly since these fell within the 'indirect losses' exclusion in the bond.

Vidéotron Ltée v. Syndicat des Employé(e)s de Vidéotron Ltée (SCPF) 2815 et al., Quebec Superior Court, December 20, 2007
Labour Law – Strike – Damages for Vandalism – Disclosure of Police Reports
Jacque Darche for Vidéotron Ltée

In this action, Videotron is seeking $30,000,000 in damages against labour unions for losses incurred as a result of acts of vandalism during a strike. Videotron applied to obtain over 400 police reports from over 30 police departments across Quebec in relation to these acts of vandalism. The Defendants resisted the application on the basis that it was a mere fishing expedition and pointed to the already voluminous documentary record of some 28,000 documents. The Court allowed Videotron to subpoena the chiefs of police in the relevant precincts to require them to file the reports in the Court record, despite the admission on the part of Videotron that it could not say with any certainty what was contained in the reports requested beyond an assertion that they were relevant. The Court did require the Plaintiff to pay the costs of filing the requested reports.

Bexley Trading Inc. v. Ottawa Health Research Institute and Wells, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, December 31, 2007
Security for Costs – Appeal – Estoppel – Impecuniosity – Reasonable Assessment
Kirsten Crain for the Defendants

This was an appeal from a Master’s order that the Plaintiff post security for costs in the amount of $75,000 up to the settlement conference and a further $225,000 60 days before trial. The Plaintiff appealed on the basis of estoppel, since another master had made a prior order for security for cots, its impecuniosity, and that the amount of costs was unreasonable. The Plaintiff also argued that the appeal should be a rehearing of the initial application.

The Court first held that the standard of review was not one of rehearing but that the decision must be so clearly wrong as to constitute a miscarriage of justice. It then dismissed the Plaintiff’s estoppel claims since the Rules of Civil Procedure expressly contemplated that awards for security for costs may be varied as the proceedings progress (Rule 56.07). With respect to the impecuniosity claim, the Court found that the Plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to show impecuniosity and had, thus, not met its 'heavy onus' in this regard. Finally, the Court found no error in principle in the assessment of costs. The appeal was dismissed.

Baranick v. Queensway Carleton Hospital and Mary Brown, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 8, 2008
Revocation of Hospital Privileges – Public Hospitals Act – Health Professions Disputes and Review Board – Stay of Proceedings
Kirsten Crain for the Defendants

This was an application by the Defendants for a stay of proceedings. The Plaintiff claimed his hospital privileges were improperly revoked and sought his lost income resulting from that revocation. The Defendants denied that a revocation had occurred and claimed, in any event, that the Court was without jurisdiction over the matter, since the Public Hospitals Act established the Health Professions Disputes and Review Board to hear the very complaints being brought by the Plaintiff. Since he failed to avail himself of his statutory remedies, his claim could not succeed. The Court agreed that the Plaintiff had attempted to improperly circumvent the proper procedure and stayed the action as a consequence until a determination by the Board had been made and awarded the Defendants their costs.

Hepburn v. Jannock Limited et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, January 11, 2008
Termination of Employment – Pension Benefits – Extrinsic Evidence – Rectification – Trusts – Promissory Estoppel
Matthew Certosimo, Lisa De Piante and Craig Hill for the Plaintiff

In the 1980s, Jannock had commenced a supplementary employment retirement plan ('SERP') for its executives. The Plaintiff was terminated from Jannock’s employment in 1999 after over 20 years of service when a subsidiary (the Brick Group) was sold. The Plaintiff’s employment contract since 1988 had provided for an additional 36 months of SERP contributions upon a change in control in the Brick Group, but the relevant terms were modified in 1999. The sale of the Brick Group was not technically a change in control and a dispute arose as to the Plaintiff’s entitlement to the additional 36-month SERP credit. The Defendants claimed that he was not entitled to the credit because he accepted a position with the Brick Group’s purchaser after having been terminated. Further complicating the issue was a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ('CCAA') proceeding involving the Defendant companies that was commenced in 2003, but Craig Hill was successful in obtaining leave in 2004 to pursue the claim despite the CCAA proceedings.

The dispute focussed on the interpretation of the 1999 agreement. The sale of the Brick Group was being contemplated at that time and the Plaintiff claimed that he requested a term similar to the one included in his 1988 agreement that would be triggered by a sale of the Brick Group rather than a change in control of Jannock and would be available regardless of whether he accepted a position with the purchaser. He prepared written notes before the meeting to discuss these amendments and sought independent legal advice in an attempt to ensure this was accomplished. He was also assured by a Jannock executive that the language of the 1999 amending agreement provided for what he intended. While initially, the Plaintiff was treated as having an additional 36 months of pension benefits, the position changed when Jannock was acquired and amalgamated with other corporate entities.

The Court found that the 1999 agreement was clear in providing to the Plaintiff the additional 36 months of pension benefits only if he did not accept a position with the purchaser and, thus, no extrinsic evidence could be admitted to aid in the interpretation of the agreement. However, the Court went on to find that it would not be fair or equitable to deny the Plaintiff the 36 months given the clear intentions of Jannock at the time of the 1999 agreement to provide that benefit. Therefore, it rectified the 1999 agreement to provide for the additional 36 months in SERP benefits. The Court found in the alternative that the Plaintiff could succeed on the basis that the applicable SERP funds were held in trust for his benefit. Finally, the Court would have allowed the Plaintiff to rely on promissory estoppel to obtain relief, as well.

Certified General Accounts Association of Canada v. Canadian Public Accountability Board, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, January 22, 2008
Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Tribunal – Declaratory Relief – Accountants – Professional Responsibility – CGA Code of Conduct
Bruce Carr-Harris, Gerry Stobo and Derek Leschinsky for CGA-Canada

A dispute arose between Certified General Accountants Association of Canada ('CGA-Canada') and Canadian Public Accountability Board ('CPAB') concerning whether CPAB would accept CGA-Canada’s Code of Conduct or would require CGAs to abide by the Code of Conduct adopted by Chartered Accountants. CGA-Canada commenced a judicial review application when CPAB began establishing barriers to the adoption of CGA standards. CPAB brought a motion to quash CGA-Canada’s application. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash in a decision that is significant for a number of reasons.

First, the Divisional Court found that it had the jurisdiction to hear a judicial review in respect of a non-statutory tribunal notwithstanding case law to the contrary. The Court found that the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction is based on whether a tribunal is public, not whether it is statutory. CPAB’s structure was innovative in that it was an attempt to establish a national regulator over the securities industry without the enactment of federal legislation (which is constitutionally impermissible). CPAB’s argument that this non-statutory structure made it immune from judicial review challenges except by its members was rejected by the Court. Second, the Court found that CGA-Canada, as a professional self-regulatory body, had standing to challenge matters affecting its members. This ruling arguably expands the jurisdiction that professional bodies will have to advance matters before our courts that are in the interests of their members. Third, and finally, the Court found that declaratory relief may be available in this case because although the original dispute was no longer a live one, a declaration (concerning the structure and conduct of CPAB) could serve a useful purpose, or even a preventative role, in addressing the regulatory autonomy of these two bodies.

OMERS Sponsors Corporation v. OMERS Administration Corporation, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, February 6, 2008
Pension Plans – Administration – Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act – Joint Protocol
Freya Kristjanson and Amanda Darrach with Alan Rock, Q.C. for the Plai