Adrienne L. Boudreau

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act.

It argued that the certification judge erred in finding the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and in determining that common issues existed, particularly regarding an alleged duty of a custodial trustee to warn investors about an investment scheme.

The court held that the certification judge properly applied the test under the Class Proceedings Act and that it was not plain and obvious the claim had no chance of success.

The alleged “super-added duty” was properly characterized as part of the broader tort duty of care that could arise depending on factual findings at trial.

The court also rejected arguments that the certification process or authorities relied upon created conflicting jurisprudence warranting appellate review.

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a dispute over the conduct of examinations for discovery, specifically whether the plaintiff could attend the defendant’s discovery and the order in which discoveries should occur.

The action alleged misrepresentation and fraud relating to investments connected to speaking engagement events and an alleged IPO opportunity.

The court considered the principles governing exclusion of a party from attending an opposing party’s examination for discovery, including the requirement of “proper cause” and the risk of tailoring evidence where credibility is central.

Given evidence suggesting credibility would be a critical issue and concerns regarding potential tailoring of testimony, the court concluded that the interests of justice justified limiting attendance until one party had completed examination.

The plaintiff’s request to strike the defence and related relief was rejected, and directions were provided for how the discoveries should proceed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing him leave to amend his statement of claim to add a claim for constructive dismissal against his former employer.

The motion judge had found the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, concluding the appellant knew or ought to have known of the claim on the date his lawyer sent a letter indicating his readiness to return to work.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's conclusion unreasonable as the employer required a reasonable time to respond to the letter.

The limitation period issue was left for determination at trial.

In a commercial dispute concerning a promissory note and alleged oppression by corporate directors and officers, the court addressed the structuring of an upcoming commercial trial.

The plaintiff alleged that a term of the promissory note required the company to apply proceeds from certain related companies to repay the note and that the company failed to comply.

The defendants denied liability and the corporate defendant advanced a counterclaim alleging breach of a separation agreement and diversion of business opportunities.

At a case conference, the parties proposed a hybrid trial procedure combining affidavit evidence with viva voce testimony.

The court approved a structured plan governing settlement discussions, service of affidavit evidence, expert reports, joint expert meetings, electronic document delivery, and time-limited oral openings, emphasizing the flexibility of modern civil trial procedures.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize and enforce a $99,925 Maryland judgment obtained against the defendant in 2004.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the action was time-barred under the Limitations Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue of discoverability—specifically when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the defendant resided in Ontario—raised genuine issues of material fact and credibility that required a trial.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a bar order in a class proceeding.

They argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction under ss. 12 and 13 of the Class Proceedings Act to make the order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bar order appropriately limited the plaintiff's claim against non-settling defendants to their proportionate liability, in accordance with established principles.