Andrea Laing

The plaintiff, a rideshare driver, commenced a proposed class action alleging that Lyft drivers are employees and entitled to protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The defendants moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on the arbitration agreement in their Terms of Service.

The plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement was inaccessible, uncertain, unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and an unlawful contracting out of employment standards.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the arbitration agreement accessible, valid, and enforceable.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proposed class action in favour of arbitration.

The Applicants, licensed cannabis producers, sought court approval and sanction of their second amended and restated plan of compromise and arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan aimed to implement a settlement framework for multiple securities class actions arising from the Applicants' illegal cannabis growing operations.

While the court found the Allocation and Distribution Scheme reasonable and rejected KPMG's complaint about being excluded from voting, it refused to sanction the Plan.

The court held that the Plan's provisions regarding the assignment of claims against KPMG and the Judgment Reduction Provision in the Bar Order were not fair and reasonable to the non-settling defendants, as they failed to limit the non-settling defendants' liability to several liability.

The plaintiffs, investors in mutual funds managed by Crystal Wealth, lost their life savings due to fraud by the fund's management.

They sought to certify a class action in negligence against BDO Canada LLP, the fund's auditor, alleging that BDO's failure to conduct proper audits delayed the discovery of the fraud.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' pleading did not disclose a legally viable cause of action.

Applying established jurisprudence, the court held that BDO did not owe a proximate duty of care to the individual investors for their pure economic losses.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $5.47 million 'ice breaker' settlement with the Deutsche Bank defendants in two proposed class actions alleging price-fixing in the international gold and silver markets.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable despite the $1 billion damages claim, because the settlement amount was consistent with parallel U.S. settlements and the non-monetary cooperation from Deutsche Bank was of inestimable value.

The court also approved class counsel's request for an interim fee award of a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements, noting that such awards promote early settlement and lessen the financial burden on class counsel in complex conspiracy cases.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $17.5 million settlement with the remaining defendants in a class action regarding a charitable tax scheme.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the significant risks of further litigation, including enforcement issues in Bermuda.

The court also approved class counsel's 33% contingency fee of $5,829,427.20 plus HST, and a $50,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, who made extraordinary efforts and financial sacrifices.

A costs request by third parties was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

The Court addressed three securities class action appeals on whether limitation periods for statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claims are suspended before leave is granted, and on related nunc pro tunc, special circumstances, leave-threshold, and certification issues.

The CIBC and IMAX appeals were dismissed, while the Celestica appeal was allowed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a class proceeding and for leave to proceed with statutory claims for misrepresentation under the Securities Act against Celestica Inc. and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations regarding a 2005 restructuring, inventory, revenue, and GAAP compliance.

The court granted leave and certified the class action solely with respect to the alleged misrepresentations about the 2005 restructuring, finding a reasonable possibility of success.

Leave and certification were denied for the inventory, revenue, and GAAP claims due to a lack of evidentiary foundation.

The court also declined to certify the common law negligent misrepresentation claim, finding it did not satisfy the preferable procedure criterion.

In a certified class proceeding concerning an alleged defective charitable gift program, the plaintiff moved to amend the certified common issues and to stay the defendants’ third‑party claims against distributors until after the common issues trial.

Competing drafts of revised common issues and orders were submitted by the plaintiff, defendants, and another defendant concerned about exposure to an unpleaded claim.

The court preferred the plaintiff’s proposed revisions and order because they more directly preserved the objective of a focused common issues trial that would not bind or involve the distributors.

However, the proposed amendments required clarification to address concerns that they might create liability for negligent implementation of an otherwise valid program, which had not been pleaded or certified.

The court directed that the revisions be modified to limit the issues or, alternatively, that the plaintiff bring a motion to amend the statement of claim and certify the additional common issue.