Lexpert Special Editions

Special Edition on Litigation -December 2015

The Lexpert Special Editions profiles selected Lexpert-ranked lawyers whose focus is in Corporate, Infrastructure, Energy and Litigation law and relevant practices. It also includes feature articles on legal aspects of Canadian business issues.

Issue link: https://digital.carswellmedia.com/i/597165

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 33 of 43

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

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Lexpert Special Editions - Special Edition on Litigation -December 2015