Alysha Xiang Li

The plaintiff sought certification of a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging the improper charging of duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court, applying the five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.

Consequently, the action was certified as a class proceeding.

EF Institute for Cultural Exchange Limited (EF) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims against its former president, David Conklin, and WorldStrides Canada, Inc. (WorldStrides).

EF alleged breaches of a Confidential Information clause and a Restrictive Covenant by Conklin, and knowing assistance/inducing breach by WorldStrides, after Conklin joined WorldStrides following his termination from EF.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no actionable breach of confidentiality or non-compete obligations, and that the claims had dwindled to a "corporate grudge match" not warranting further litigation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This decision concerns the determination of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought costs of $180,753.95, while the plaintiff had initially outlined costs of $55,053.66 if successful.

The court applied the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than the actual costs incurred by the successful party.

Despite the defendants' complete success and a Rule 49 offer, the court found their claimed costs to be excessive, partly due to the number of lawyers involved and potential overpreparation.

The court awarded the defendants $65,000.00, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The applicant tenant applied for an order referring disputes over operating costs under three commercial leases to an independent professional consultant for expert determination, as provided in the leases.

The respondent landlord argued the disputes involved legal interpretation and should be resolved by the court.

The court granted the application, finding that the expert determination clause was broad enough to encompass the disputes, which involved practical questions of lease interpretation and allocation of expenses.

The defendants brought a motion on consent to dismiss the putative class action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action was commenced in 2011 and had been dormant since 2012, with no certification motion record filed or timetable established.

The court found that the mandatory requirements for dismissal under s. 29.1 were met, as the statutory deadline of October 1, 2021, had passed without any required steps being taken.

The action was dismissed, and plaintiffs' counsel was ordered to bear the costs of providing notice of the dismissal.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of confidentiality and fiduciary duty.

The individual defendant, a former president of the plaintiff, was terminated without cause and signed a severance agreement with a one-year confidentiality clause.

During that year, he interviewed with and accepted a job from the corporate defendant, a competitor.

The plaintiff alleged he shared confidential information, including his resume and advice to another terminated employee.

The court found no actionable breach of confidentiality or fiduciary duty, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.