Alexander Dimitri Lascaris

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order in a securities misrepresentation class action.

The motion judge had ordered the defendant to pay 50% of the costs forthwith and 50% in the cause, while disallowing disbursements that had already been paid by settling defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the tests under Rule 62.02(4)(a) or (b).

The court emphasized the high degree of deference owed to discretionary costs orders, particularly those made by an experienced case management judge in a complex class proceeding.

The defendant BCE Inc. brought a consent motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning alleged secondary market misrepresentations.

The court found that the plaintiff's statutory and common law claims were statute-barred because no motion for leave had been brought within the applicable limitation periods.

As no purpose would be served by continuing the action and no prejudice would result, the court granted leave to discontinue the action without costs and without notice to the putative class members.

The Court addressed three securities class action appeals on whether limitation periods for statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claims are suspended before leave is granted, and on related nunc pro tunc, special circumstances, leave-threshold, and certification issues.

The CIBC and IMAX appeals were dismissed, while the Celestica appeal was allowed.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim in a securities class action to add further particulars of wrongful conduct underlying their misrepresentation claims against the corporate respondent.

The motion judge denied leave for most of the amendments, finding they constituted discrete misrepresentation claims requiring fresh leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act, and were statute-barred under s. 138.14(1).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, with one limited exception permitting the appellants to plead a narrower omission allegation relating to previously pleaded facts.

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

In this proposed securities class action arising from the collapse of a public issuer, the plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of claims on behalf of purchasers of notes and shares in the primary and secondary markets.

Subject to one contested issue concerning former noteholders who had assigned their notes during the class period, the motions were unopposed or proceeded on consent.

The court granted leave and certified the action, holding that the substantive dispute over whether assigned noteholder claims vested in transferees under New York law should be postponed until after certification.

The court found it procedurally preferable and fair to defer that merits issue until after a defence was delivered, thereby avoiding interlocutory delay in a large and complex class proceeding.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed securities class action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act, obtained leave under s. 138.1, and had the action certified.

They later moved for leave to amend their statement of claim to add new allegations of misrepresentation.

The defendants consented to amendments that merely expanded already-pleaded allegations but opposed the balance as fresh misrepresentation claims requiring a separate, and now time-barred, leave application.

The court held that leave under s. 138.8 is assessed against each discrete allegation of misrepresentation, so that the impugned amendments — alleging new bribery and code-of-ethics violations in multiple jurisdictions — were not mere elaborations but discrete claims requiring a fresh leave application.

The motion was granted in part: the consented amendments were allowed and the impugned amendments were refused.

The plaintiff sought certification of a securities class action asserting statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims, common law negligent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court applied the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that a global class was appropriate for the statutory and oppression claims, and also for negligent misrepresentation, but only insofar as that claim overlapped with the misrepresentations for which leave had already been granted under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

Relying on appellate authority, the court refused to certify common issues based on inferred reliance and aggregate damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The court concluded that certification of all three causes of action in a single class proceeding was the preferable procedure, subject to narrowing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a prior ruling on a motion for leave to commence a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The earlier decision granted leave for some alleged misrepresentations but dismissed others, including allegations relating to revenue recognition in the issuer’s 2008 financial statements.

The parties requested clarification regarding whether the alleged misrepresentation in the issuer’s October 14, 2009 Management’s Discussion and Analysis concerning revenue recognition had been determined.

The court held that although there was likely an internal control deficiency relating to revenue recognition at the time of the MD&A, there was no evidence that the deficiency, standing alone, was material.

Leave was therefore refused and the motion dismissed with respect to that alleged misrepresentation.

A shareholder sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a statutory secondary market misrepresentation action under s. 138.3 against a solar energy company and two of its officers.

The alleged misrepresentations concerned financial statements, internal control disclosures, and statements incorporated into a prospectus supplement.

The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable possibility of success regarding alleged misrepresentations in the issuer’s original Q4 2009 financial statements and the October 2009 prospectus supplement, including related press releases and conference calls.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence of misrepresentation in earlier 2009 interim financial statements or the 2008 revenue recognition disclosure.

Leave was granted in part and refused in part.

Following a major appellate decision regarding the tolling of limitation periods in securities class actions, the successful parties in two of the appeals sought their costs.

The opposing parties argued for reduced costs on the basis of public interest, over-lawyering, and the fact that the court had overruled its own prior jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity and significance of the proceedings.

Costs of $151,250 and $100,000 were awarded to the respective successful parties on a partial indemnity scale.

In a class proceeding relating to alleged misconduct involving a public corporation, the court addressed a correction to a prior costs decision.

The earlier reasons contained a factual error regarding the quantum of costs awarded to certain defendants on a motion to amend.

On consent of the parties, the court corrected the error and revised the amount payable.

The corrected award granted the defendants all‑inclusive costs for the amendments motion in a lower amount than originally stated.

Following an earlier decision dismissing a motion by the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim and rejecting most of their requested changes to a discovery plan in a securities class action, the court addressed costs.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for both the amendments motion and the discovery plan motion.

The court held that the amendments motion was a significant and high-stakes procedural dispute in complex class proceedings and that the defendants’ claimed costs were within the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ demands regarding the discovery plan were disproportionate and that the defendants were the successful party on that motion.

Costs were awarded to the defendants both for the amendments motion and, in any event of the cause, for the discovery plan motion.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision granting the plaintiffs leave to pursue claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs alleged the corporate defendant misrepresented its equity market risk by failing to disclose its decision to abandon hedging and reinsurance of guaranteed products.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the plaintiffs had a reasonable possibility of success at trial and that the common law misrepresentation claims were suitable for certification alongside the statutory claims.

In three related securities class action appeals, the court reconsidered whether a statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claim under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act is time-barred unless leave is obtained within the s. 138.14 limitation period.

The court overruled Timminco and held that, for purposes of s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the statutory claim is asserted when the representative plaintiff pleads the statutory cause of action, the supporting facts, and an intention to seek leave within a timely commenced class proceeding.

The court also upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the s. 138.8 leave standard as screening out hopeless claims, while holding that the Green certification decision erred in failing to consider certifying common negligent misrepresentation issues other than reliance.

The plaintiffs' appeal in Green was allowed in part and the defendants' appeals in Silver and Celestica were dismissed.

Following dismissal of the representative plaintiffs’ motion seeking production of documents generated during a World Bank sanctions investigation involving the corporate defendant, the defendants sought costs of approximately $98,721.66 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be in the cause or substantially reduced due to proportionality and access-to-justice concerns in class proceedings, and challenged certain expert disbursements.

The court held that the defendants were entitled to recover their claimed costs but fashioned a hybrid order reflecting the realities of class action litigation.

The court ordered costs of $98,721.66 inclusive of HST, with $25,000 payable forthwith and the balance payable in the cause or set off against future costs awards if the defendants ultimately succeeded.

The ruling emphasized the multiple purposes of costs, including indemnity, discouraging meritless motions, and balancing access-to-justice concerns in complex class actions.

Following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be in the cause of a forthcoming leave and certification motion, but the court rejected this position and held that costs should generally be determined at each stage of the proceeding.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the defendants’ costs should be limited to the range the plaintiff would have sought had it succeeded.

Considering the rates of senior counsel and the parties’ costs outlines, the court fixed fair and reasonable costs payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents from the defendant SNC, including a Negotiated Resolution Agreement between SNC and the World Bank regarding bribery allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The court held that the World Bank's sanctions procedures constituted 'litigation' for the purposes of the privilege, that the communications were intended to be confidential, and that their purpose was to effect a settlement.

The court declined to create a public policy exception to the privilege and found no waiver of the privilege by SNC.