Alexander Bill Dimson

This is a class action alleging financial misrepresentations in the sale of the defendant's securities.

The class comprises persons or entities who acquired securities between March 30, 2011 and November 7, 2013.

The action was certified under the Class Proceedings Act in December 2018.

The parties reached a proposed settlement whereby the defendant will pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability to resolve all claims.

The court approved the notice plan for dissemination to class members and appointed Epiq Global as the settlement administrator.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered appeals and cross-appeals from a certification decision in a proposed class action regarding alleged defects in BMW vehicles equipped with N20 engines.

The court found that the certification judge erred in certifying causes of action for negligent design/manufacturing resulting in repair costs and in defining the class to include persons who incurred such costs.

The court held that neither of the proposed representative plaintiffs had a valid cause of action and set aside the certification order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal and cross-appeal, along with motions to quash.

The parties agreed that the appeal and cross-appeal were sufficiently interrelated to be heard together to avoid duplication and ensure consistency.

Consequently, the court, on consent, dismissed both motions to quash without costs, ordering the consolidated appeal and cross-appeal to proceed.

This is a class action certification motion concerning allegedly defective N20 engines in BMW vehicles.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of owners/lessees of BMW vehicles with these engines, alleging design and/or manufacturing defects causing sudden loss of power.

The court analyzed the five certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

While a cause of action in negligence was found, it was significantly narrowed to exclude claims for pure economic loss, limiting recovery to repair costs for actual damage or to avert imminent damage.

The proposed class definition was also narrowed to include only those who incurred such repair expenses by the judgment date.

One of the two proposed representative plaintiffs was deemed unsuitable as she had no recoverable loss.

The motion for certification was granted, but with substantial limitations on the scope of the class and the recoverable damages, and with only one representative plaintiff.

This class action is in the settlement administration phase.

Class Counsel sought an order appointing Doug Mitchell as a bilingual arbitrator to assess appeals filed by class members regarding claims administrator decisions, as contemplated by the court-approved Administration Protocol.

The court granted the motion, finding Mr. Mitchell qualified and his appointment consistent with the fair and expeditious determination of class member appeals under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In a proposed class action arising from a data breach of Marriott's hotel reservation database, the parties stated a question of law under Rule 21(1)(a) as to whether the plaintiff pleaded a legally viable cause of action for intrusion on seclusion.

The plaintiff argued that Marriott, by allegedly obtaining data under false pretenses and failing to protect it, was a 'constructive intruder'.

The court rejected this argument, following binding precedent that the tort of intrusion on seclusion applies only to actual intruders, not to defendants who fail to prevent a third-party hack.

The court concluded the Statement of Claim did not disclose a cause of action for intrusion on seclusion against Marriott.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and certification of a class proceeding against Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and its officers.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to disclose a material tax liability arising from a CRA audit regarding transfer pricing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial because the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the defendants' disclosures accurately reflected management's reasonable assessment of the tax risk.

The court also declined to certify the common law and prospectus misrepresentation claims, finding a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure and the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against TD, RBC, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank in a case alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the futures exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion, approving the settlement agreements and the plan of dissemination.

The defendants brought motions across five Canadian jurisdictions to address overlapping multijurisdictional class actions regarding a data breach.

The parties reached a settlement to proceed only with the Ontario national class action and stay the actions in British Columbia, Alberta, Québec, and Nova Scotia.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the consent order dismissing the stay motion in Ontario, allowing the action to proceed subject to bi-annual reporting requirements to the case management judges in the other jurisdictions.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against CIBC Mortgages Inc. regarding the calculation of prepayment penalties on residential mortgages.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prepayment penalty clauses were illegal, contrary to public policy, unconscionable, and void for uncertainty, and that the defendant miscalculated the penalties by failing to apply a present value discount and using a shortened amortization period.

The court found that the pleadings did not disclose causes of action for illegality, unconscionability (as pleaded), uncertainty, or failure to apply a present value discount.

However, the court found a valid cause of action regarding the use of a shortened amortization period and certified the action as a class proceeding on that narrowed basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interim stay and an adjournment of a scheduled certification motion in Ontario.

The purpose was to pursue certification of a national class in a parallel class proceeding in British Columbia, citing the death of lead counsel in BC and anticipated legislative changes allowing opt-out national classes there.

The court denied the motion, finding the request was a late-stage tactical shift amounting to forum shopping, inefficient, and unfair to the defendant and class members, especially given the Ontario action's advanced stage and prior agreements on scheduling.

A secondary market misrepresentation class action was brought against a coal mining company and its former CFOs and directors following the company's restatement of financial statements for 2010-2012.

The motion judge granted leave to proceed against the company but denied leave against the individual defendants, finding they had established a reasonable investigation defence.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the leave motion as a mini-trial and failing to consider significant credibility issues and gaps in the evidentiary record.

The court found that the defendants' position—that they should evade liability because they previously made material misrepresentations in the restatement but are now telling the truth—was inconsistent with fundamental securities regulation principles requiring scrupulous continuous disclosure.

The Superior Court of Justice approved a $69 million settlement in a securities class action against Manulife Financial Corporation, along with the plan of allocation, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, class counsel's contingency fees, and a preliminary commission for a third-party litigation funder.

The court found the late-stage settlement to be fair and reasonable, considering the extensive litigation and identified risks, including compelling evidence of market understanding of Manulife's hedging practices, a reasonable investigation defense, arguments against corrective disclosure, the impact of the economic crisis, and the dismissal of a parallel U.S. action.

The defendant corporation moved for leave to appeal a decision granting the plaintiff leave to commence a secondary market securities misrepresentation action against it.

The motion judge had dismissed the action against the individual directors and officers, finding they established a reasonable investigation defence, but allowed the action against the corporation to proceed based on a restatement of financial results.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order because the corporate identification doctrine suggests the corporation should also benefit from the reasonable investigation defence established by its directing minds.

The applicant sought leave to commence a class action under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act, alleging the respondent mining company failed to disclose a material change regarding the introduction of cement grout pack supports which allegedly caused a decline in production.

The court reviewed the evidence, including expert reports and fact witness affidavits, and found that the overwhelming weight of the evidence demonstrated that cement grout packs were not introduced during the relevant quarter.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's threshold test from Theratechnologies, the court concluded the proposed action had no reasonable prospect of success at trial and dismissed the motion for leave.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to pursue a secondary market misrepresentation class action arising from a mining company’s public restatement of prior financial statements related to “bill and hold” revenue recognition.

The court held that the explicit restatement acknowledging prior errors and internal control weaknesses created a reasonable possibility that the claim against the issuer could succeed at trial.

However, the individual officers and directors demonstrated a reasonable investigation defence through detailed evidence of their reliance on professional auditors and careful review of revenue recognition practices.

As a result, the statutory leave requirement was satisfied only as against the issuer company.

Leave was refused against the individual defendants.

On a refusals motion arising from a pending leave motion under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act, the court considered the proper scope of cross-examination and documentary production under s. 138.8.

The court reiterated that pre-leave examinations are narrower than discoveries and are intended to prevent speculative securities claims from turning into discovery-like rummaging through corporate and non-party records.

One question directed to a mine planner about his understanding of any accelerated introduction of cement grout support packs was ordered answered because it went to the central factual dispute.

All other disputed questions were upheld as refused on grounds of irrelevance, overbreadth, improper documentary discovery, or litigation privilege.

In a leave application under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act alleging failure to disclose a material change in mining operations, the parties brought competing motions to strike expert and fact affidavits.

The respondents sought to strike the applicant’s mining expert affidavit on the basis that it improperly opined on legal issues, relied on false assumptions, and lacked independence.

The applicant sought to strike several fact and expert affidavits filed by the respondents, arguing they violated Rule 39.01(5), relied on hearsay, and attempted to shield witnesses from cross-examination.

The court held that expert evidence may rely on second-hand information and that Rule 39.01(5) does not govern admissibility of expert opinion.

The alleged conflicts and factual disputes affected weight rather than admissibility.

Both motions to strike were dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The appellant and respondent were both defrauded in an investment scheme.

A receiver was appointed and identified three methods for allocating the remaining funds.

The motion judge ordered that distributions be made pursuant to the fund unit allocation method, which is a form of the lowest intermediate balance rule (LIBR).

The appellant appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred in finding that LIBR is the general rule and in equating the receiver's calculations with proper LIBR tracing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that LIBR is the preferred allocation method for comingled funds where practically possible, and finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual conclusions regarding the receiver's calculations.

A receiver was appointed over a fraudulent investment scheme where the deposits of 24 investors were commingled.

The receiver sought directions on how to distribute the remaining funds, which had a significant shortfall.

One group of investors argued for a pro rata distribution based on original contributions, while another argued for the Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule (LIBR).

The court held that LIBR is the general rule for resolving competing claims to commingled funds unless it is unworkable.

Finding that the receiver could practically calculate the LIBR distributions, the court ordered the funds to be distributed according to LIBR.