Alex Dimson

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 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.

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.

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.

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.