Big Suits
|
39
Tenai, Steve J.
Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP
(416) 216-4023
steve.tenai@nortonroseful-
bright.com
Mr. Tenai's practice
includes class action,
securities, commercial,
oppression, take-over
and privacy litigation.
He also represents
companies and/or their
directors and officers in
internal and regulatory
investigations.
Thacker, Lawrence E.
Lenczner Slaght Royce
Smith Griffin LLP
(416) 865-3097
lthacker@litigate.com
Recognized as a lead-
ing trial and appellate
lawyer, Mr. Thacker has
broad experience in
M&A, shareholder dis-
putes, complex class ac-
tions, patent disputes,
securities issues, tax
litigation, commercial
arbitrations and insol-
vency and restructuring.
Thomson, Mary M.
Gowling Lafleur
Henderson LLP
(416) 862-4644
mary.thomson@gowlings.com
Ms. Thomson serves as
head of Gowlings firm-
wide litigation practice.
She represents clients
in high-profile product
liability class actions
and mass tort litigation
(pharma and medical
devices), as well as
in health law, consent
law and privacy law.
Terry, John A.
Torys LLP
(416) 865-8245
jterry@torys.com
Mr. Terry's civil litiga-
tion practice focuses
on public, business
and international trade
and investment law.
Regularly advises cor-
porations and federal,
provincial and municipal
governments on NAFTA
and WTO matters.
Thomson, Kent E.
Davies Ward Phillips
& Vineberg LLP
(416) 863-5566
kentthomson@dwpv.com
Mr. Thomson is recog-
nized as one of Can-
ada's leading litigation
counsel and has acted
in a number of preced-
ent-setting cases. He
specializes in complex,
high-stakes commercial
litigation. He is a Fellow
of the American College
of Trial Lawyers.
Torralbo, Robert J.
Blake, Cassels
& Graydon LLP
(514) 982-4014
robert.torralbo@blakes.com
Mr. Torralbo's corpor-
ate commercial litiga-
tion and arbitration
practice emphasizes
the defence of class
actions, product liability,
securities, banking, real
estate & shareholder
disputes. His clients
include financial
institutions and
multinationals.
her company ree Pines Creations Inc. seeking to end the
made-for-TV rights of production company PDM Enter-
tainment Inc.
Ms. Penny and ree Pines were appealing from a January
2015 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that
found that an option agreement between ree Pines and
PDM Entertainment permitted PDM Entertainment to ex-
tend its option for two one-year periods, and that granted
PDM Entertainment relief from forfeiture relating to its first
non-compliant extension of the option agreement.
e case is important for its holdings on what constitutes
adequate reasons for decision and the standard of review for
questions of contractual interpretation and on the court's
broad jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture even with-
out a breach of contract.
Ms. Penny is the author of a series of novels featuring
Chief Inspector Armand Gamache of the Sûreté du Québec,
set in the imaginary village of ree Pines. More than three
million copies of her novels have been sold in 30 countries
and 23 languages.
In 2011, ree Pines, which holds the intellectual prop-
erty in the Gamache series, entered into an option agreement
with PDM Entertainment granting PDM a two-year option
to acquire certain rights in the Gamache series, including the
exclusive right to make a made-for-television film based on
each of the novels.
In or around October 2012, PDM exercised its option
to the first book in the series, Still Life. e movie aired on
CBC on September 15, 2013, and was the highest-rated
television movie that year for CBC.
In September 2013, PDM extended its option rights on
the second book of the series by one year, relying on clause
2.3B of the agreement. PDM purported to extend this op-
tion by a further year in September 2014, again relying on
clause 2.3B. Ms. Penny and ree Pines disputed that PDM
was entitled to extend twice pursuant to clause 2.3B, and
PDM took the position that it had erroneously referred to
the wrong clause (2.3B instead of 2.3) and paid the wrong
lower extension fee when it first extended the option in Sep-
tember 2013. PDM sought relief from forfeiture to relieve it
of the consequences of its errors.
e Court of Appeal held that the application judge's
reasons on the interpretation of the option agreement were
"conclusory," but that they did not cross the line into "insuf-
ficient." With respect to the standard of review, the Court
cited the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sattva Cap-
ital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., which held that deference is
generally owed to first-instance decision makers on points of
contractual interpretation.
Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal applied a correctness
standard to the application judge's contractual interpreta-
tion. In doing so, the Court relied on the fact that the reasons
below had not mentioned an important contractual provi-
sion, that there were no credibility issues, that the matter had
been determined on an application, not aer a trial, and that
only a few contractual provisions need be considered.
e Court agreed with PDM that the option agreement
gave it two one-year extensions, one pursuant to clause 2.3
and a second, which will expire in September 2015, pursuant
to clause 2.3B.
With respect to relief from forfeiture, Ms. Penny and
ree Pines had argued that there was no jurisdiction to
grant relief because the remedy is only available where a
party has breached a contract, which PDM had not done.
