34
|
On the Case
Richards, J. Gregory
WeirFoulds LLP
(416) 947-5031
grichards@weirfoulds.com
Mr. Richards has
litigated significant
cases in a broad range
of fields that include
corporate and commer-
cial matters, complex
contract issues, govern-
ment liability, municipal
law, professional negli-
gence and other claims.
Riendeau, Alain
Fasken Martineau
DuMoulin LLP
(514) 397-7678
ariendeau@fasken.com
Mr. Riendeau practises
in the areas of bank-
ruptcy, insolvency and
corporate commercial
litigation. He has been
involved in many com-
plex financial disputes,
large restructurings,
significant class action
cases and high-profile
securities litigation.
Rochon, Joel P.
Rochon Genova LLP
(416) 363-1867
jrochon@rochongenova.com
Mr. Rochon, manag-
ing partner at Rochon
Genova LLP, heads the
firm's class action prac-
tice. He has served as
lead counsel on numer-
ous national class
actions, including
Nortel, Toyota and
ongoing cases involving
CIBC, SNC Lavalin
and Lac-Mégantic.
Richler, FCIArb, Joel
Blake, Cassels
& Graydon LLP
(416) 863-2735
jr@blakes.com
Mr. Richler's commer-
cial litigation practice
embraces trials, ap-
peals, arbitrations and
mediations before
administrative tribunals,
the courts of Ont, BC
and NB, the FC and the
SCC. He also acts as
arbitrator and mediator.
Rigaud, Sylvain
Norton Rose Fulbright
Canada LLP
(514) 847-4702
sylvain.rigaud@nortonroseful-
bright.com
Mr. Rigaud's practice
focuses mainly on busi-
ness restructuring and
insolvency, and has
maintained an active
commercial litigation
practice at trial and
on appeal in bankrupt-
cy-related disputes
and in complex
valuation and loss
quantification cases.
Rodrigue, Sylvie
Torys LLP
(416) 865-8105
srodrigue@torys.com
Ms. Rodrigue has a
broad litigation practice,
with extensive experi-
ence defending high-
profile class actions
across Canada as well
as other corporate/
commercial matters.
Leads Torys's Montréal
office and continues
her practice in Montréal
and Toronto.
LEXPERT®Ranked Lawyers
DEPENDING ON ONE'S perspective, the Supreme
Court of Canada's companion decisions last month in Atco
Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta and Ontario v. Ontario Pow-
er Generation Inc. send decidedly different messages.
For individual consumers, as well as that part of the busi-
ness community affected by the price of regulated services,
the message is upbeat. But for those providing regulated ser-
vices, like energy companies, telecoms and railways – as well
as the unions associated with these enterprises – the future
landscape for setting rates and negotiating collective agree-
ments is now fraught with new uncertainties.
In Atco and OPG, the high court ruled that the Alberta
Utilities Commission and the Ontario Energy Board had
not been acting unreasonably in refusing to allow the utilities
to recover operating costs related to pensions and wages that
had been incurred under previously negotiated collective
bargaining agreements. e court also made it clear that the
burden of proving prudence or reasonableness for operating
costs or usefulness for capital costs lay squarely on the utili-
ties, and that regulators have a very long leash in determining
the scope of their statutory powers.
"e Supreme Court's position was that the court must
defer to economic regulators unless their determination is
clearly unreasonable," says Glenn Zacher of Stikeman Elliott
LLP, who represented OPG.
By deciding that the regulators had not erred in refusing
to allow previously committed compensation costs, then, the
Supreme Court effectively sanctioned the use of hindsight in
determining whether the costs had been incurred prudently.
e upshot is that regulated entities can no longer rest as-
Twin rulings at the Supreme Court of Canada give regulators the authority
to reject collectively bargained labour costs
By Julius Melnitzer
REGULATORS
DECIDE WHAT'S
PRUDENT
