Alina Butt

The plaintiff, Oslyn Lewis, brought an action against The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Canada Limited, Hertz Canada Vehicles Partnership, and TD Canada Trust after a rental car was seized with his belongings inside.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Hertz, finding that the parties had previously settled the dispute and Lewis had signed a release covering all claims.

The court found no evidence of breach of settlement or prejudice to the plaintiff, and that all claims—including those about being banned and alleged false statements to TD—were covered by the release.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ticketmaster regarding its secondary ticket market practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ticketmaster knowingly facilitated or turned a blind eye to professional resellers using bots and multiple accounts to bypass primary market ticket limits, contrary to its Terms of Use and Purchase Policy.

The court certified the class action for claims of breach of contract, breach of ticketing legislation, unlawful means conspiracy, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court found that the claims under the Competition Act and consumer protection legislation did not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and their damages.

The court also dismissed Ticketmaster's motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert reports, finding them admissible and relevant to establishing a methodology for calculating aggregate damages.

The applicant sought the appointment of a full receiver over the properties and assets of the respondent power generation companies following significant monetary and operational defaults under loan agreements.

The respondents opposed a full receivership, arguing they had secured alternative financing, but consented to continuing an interim receivership.

The court found the proposed financing commitment highly conditional and uncertain, and noted the respondents' lack of interim funding, disarray in management, and risk to employees and operations.

Concluding it was just and convenient to protect the applicant's security, the court granted the application and appointed a full receiver.