Corktown Films Inc. v. Ontario et al., (1996) 18 O.T.C. 308 (GD)

• Judge: Benotto, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: October 24, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 18 O.T.C. 308 (GD)

Corktown Films Inc. v. Ont. (1996), 18 O.T.C. 308 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Corktown Films Inc. (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario and Ontario Film Development Corporation (defendants)

(No. 96-CU-102434)

Indexed As: Corktown Films Inc. v. Ontario et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Benotto, J.

November 5, 1996.

Summary:

The Ontario Film Development Corp. (OFDC) was a government agency which tried to stimulate growth in the Ontario film and television agency. One of its programs, the Ontario Film Investment Programme (OFIP), was created to give grants in the form of cash rebates to eligible investors. Under the guidelines issued by the OFDC, it had complete discretion with regard to the distribution of the OFIP funds and had sole discretion to require compliance with the spirit and intent of the guidelines. The guidelines specified a three stage process for approval for the OFIP grants: threshold review, provisional certificate and final certificate review. Corktown Films Inc. applied for a grant and passed the threshold review. On March 31, 1994, it was advised by letter that passage did not constitute a commitment and that the potential rebate might never be increased and could be reduced. Subsequently, Corktown's application was denied at the second stage (provisional certificate review). The application did not meet the guideline requirement that all photography must have commenced after April 1 on the year of application. Much of the photography for the film in question had been done earlier for a different film. There were also concerns regarding the level of violence in the film. Corktown sued the OFDC for breach of contract. The OFDC applied under rule 21 of the Rules of Court to strike the action on the ground that the March 31, 1994 letter together with the guidelines did not constitute a contract. The OFDC also joined a motion under rule 20 so that the letter and the guidelines could be considered. Corktown served subpoenas to examine the members of the OFDC as witnesses on the motion.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the OFDC's rule 21 application and struck Corktown's action. The court observed that it would have struck the subpoenas because "it is a fundamental part of law that administrative decision makers not be called upon to explain their decisions."

Contracts - Topic 6

General principles - What constitutes a contract - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Contracts - Topic 1205

Formation of contract - Offer - What constitutes an offer - See paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 5607

Witnesses - Competency and compellability - Compellability - Particular persons - Boards and tribunals - Members of - See paragraphs 9 and 10.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

Lethbridge Collieries Ltd. v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 138, refd to. [para. 6].

Joy Oil Co. v. R., [1949] Ex. C.R. 136, refd to. [para. 6].

Grant v. New Brunswick (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 95 (C.A.), dist. [para. 7].

Lacewood Productions Inc. v. Ontario Film Development Corp., [1996] O.J. No. 956 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

Agnew v. Ontario Association of Architects (1987), 26 O.A.C. 354; 64 O.R.(2d) 8 (Div. Ct.), folld. [para. 10].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 20 [para. 9]; rule 21 [para. 1].

Counsel:

Harvin D. Pitch, for the plaintiff/ responding party;

Mark J. Freiman, for the defendants/ moving parties.

This application was heard on October 24, 1996, before Benotto, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who released the following decision on November 5, 1996.