Alexandra Allison

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion in a class action regarding the price of packaged bread after discovering potentially fraudulent claims on the settlement funds.

The Settlement Administrator identified that approximately $3.7 million in approved claims had been channeled into a small number of bank accounts.

To investigate the issue, the Settlement Administrator's banking partner required an indemnity.

The court granted an order permitting the Settlement Administrator to use any returned funds to cover claims under the indemnity, with any remaining funds to be distributed cy-près.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Amazon moved for approval of a third-party funding agreement under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, noting it provided sufficient funding for disbursements and adverse costs without overcompensating the funder.

The court also granted an order designating the plaintiff's lawyers as class counsel and precluding the commencement of similar actions in Ontario without leave of the court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Binance's appeal from the certification of a class action brought by Canadian investors who purchased cryptocurrency derivatives through Binance.

The court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim disclosed reasonable causes of action under both the Securities Act and at common law, and that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court rejected Binance’s arguments regarding the statutory and common law causes of action, the commonality of issues, and the appropriateness of class-wide remedies, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The appellant, Binance Holdings Limited, appealed a motion judge's order dismissing its motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.

The underlying dispute involved a proposed class action by purchasers of cryptocurrency derivatives against Binance for alleged violations of the Ontario Securities Act.

The motion judge had found the arbitration clause void due to public policy and unconscionability, and that exceptions to the competence-competence principle applied, allowing the court to decide the validity of the arbitration clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the arbitration clause was inaccessible and unconscionable, effectively insulating Binance from meaningful challenge, and that the court properly exercised jurisdiction over the validity of the arbitration agreement.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against Binance for illegal sales of cryptocurrency derivative products without registration or prospectus, contrary to the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The court granted certification, finding a recognizable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common issues suitable for class-wide determination, including liability and remedies like rescission and aggregate damages.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the mechanical impossibility of rescission and the unfeasibility of aggregate damages, noting a lack of factual basis for their claims of user-to-user contracts.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against Binance for selling crypto derivatives products without filing a prospectus, contrary to the Securities Act.

Binance brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong, relying on an arbitration agreement in its online terms of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement void ab initio as contrary to public policy and unconscionable, given the disproportionate cost of arbitration in Hong Kong compared to the average investor's claim and the inequality of bargaining power in the standard form 'click' contract.

The defendants moved for security for costs, substitute security, set-off of interlocutory costs, and withdrawal of writs of execution pending an assessment of damages for deceit.

The plaintiffs brought cross-motions including a request to add a vesting order issue to the assessment.

The court dismissed all motions, primarily citing the defendants' significant delay in bringing their motions and the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had been exploiting the intellectual property collateral for years.

The court also found that considering a vesting order was beyond the scope of the assessment ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

Inzola Group Limited appealed a trial decision dismissing its claims for breach of contract and bias against the City of Brampton regarding a multi-million-dollar construction Request for Proposals (RFP).

Inzola was disqualified for breaching RFP terms, including failing to sign a confidentiality agreement, communicating outside the sole point of contact, and making public disclosures to the media.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that Inzola's breaches were fundamental and threatened the integrity of the RFP process.

The court also rejected Inzola's argument that the City breached a duty of fair and equal treatment by handling a different alleged breach by another bidder (Dominus) differently, finding Dominus's breach inconsequential compared to Inzola's.

The appeal on liability was dismissed, and leave to appeal costs was denied.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun seized from his vehicle following an investigative detention in a parking lot after a police “gun-call” dispatch.

Police detained the accused, failed to promptly advise him of the reasons for detention and his right to counsel, and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle that uncovered marihuana, cocaine, and a firearm.

The court found breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, concluding that the officers lacked lawful authority to search the vehicle and had deliberately disregarded constitutional obligations during detention and arrest.

The court further found the police evidence unreliable regarding alleged marihuana odour and statements attributed to the accused.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court held that the seriousness of the Charter breaches and their impact on the accused’s rights outweighed society’s interest in adjudicating the firearm charges on the merits.