Alexandra Psellas

This endorsement addresses a motion in a certified class action regarding the scope of discovery.

The defendant, Western Union, sought to compel the representative plaintiff to answer two refused questions: (a) to produce facts and evidence from class members in the possession of class counsel, and (b) to advise whether plaintiffs’ counsel had spoken to any collectors or brokers.

The court found both questions improper, as they would effectively grant the defendant discovery of all class members and class counsel, contrary to the principles of class proceedings and privilege.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendants by counterclaim (West Face Capital Inc., Gregory Boland, and Bruce Langstaff) moved for a Mareva injunction to prevent the plaintiffs by counterclaim (The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Callidus Capital Corporation, and Newton Glassman) from removing assets from Ontario.

The moving parties alleged that Mr. Glassman was relocating to the Bahamas and dissipating assets to avoid potential judgments arising from a massive corporate espionage and defamation campaign.

The court found that while the moving parties established a strong prima facie case of deceitful and tortious conduct by Mr. Glassman, they failed to prove a real risk that assets were being removed with the specific intent to defeat creditors.

The court also found the moving parties delayed in bringing the motion and failed to establish irreparable harm.

The motions for a Mareva injunction were dismissed.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action under anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court addressed the appropriate scale and quantum of costs, considering the statutory presumption of full indemnity costs for successful anti-SLAPP motions and recent conflicting Court of Appeal guidance on costs guidelines.

The court awarded the Canadian Nurses Association Defendants $250,000.00 on a full indemnity basis and the Together News Inc. Defendants $65,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding these amounts fair and reasonable given the case's complexity and the parties' expectations prior to new appellate guidance.

This is the third installment of a trial to determine the fair value of a corporate entity and other damages owed by an estate, following previous findings of oppression.

The court addressed complex accounting issues, including the outstanding balance of a shareholder loan, financing fees, and the ownership interests and loan obligations of added parties in related entities.

The court made specific findings on these financial adjustments, leading to a significant payment ordered from the estate to the applicant.

The decision also clarified the application of res judicata in multi-stage proceedings and emphasized the consequences for parties responsible for poor financial record-keeping.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were not entitled to bring the motion due to non-compliance with discovery plan obligations, that the delay was not inordinate, and that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay (conflict of interest with previous counsel, health issues of a key principal, COVID-19 pandemic, and a complex property sale).

The plaintiffs also argued that the defendants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

The court found that the 1 year and 9 months delay was not inordinate, and that the combined explanations for the delay were reasonable and cogent.

Furthermore, the defendants failed to prove actual prejudice that would prevent a fair trial.

Consequently, the motion to dismiss was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the plaintiffs' inaction necessitating the motion.

Fletcher’s Fields Limited (FFL) sought the court's opinion and direction regarding the sale of its rugby fields and the distribution of proceeds.

FFL argued the fields were held in a non-charitable purpose trust for promoting rugby.

The court confirmed the existence and validity of this non-charitable purpose trust, finding that FFL held the fields as trustee for the promotion and playing of rugby.

The court also determined that FFL was unambiguously entitled to the sale proceeds and, upon dissolution, was obliged and entitled to distribute the remaining net proceeds to its shareholders, all of whom are not-for-profit corporations, as a return of share capital.

The plaintiffs, a group of nurses and their organization who organized protests against COVID-19 mandates outside hospitals, sued the defendants for defamation over statements and articles criticizing their actions.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' claim had substantial merit, they failed to show that the harm they suffered outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expressions on matters of public health.

The action was dismissed.