Andrea R. Laing

The plaintiff, Peter Ross, brought an unopposed motion to certify a class proceeding against RBC Global Asset Management Inc. and RBC Investor Services Trust.

The action alleges that the defendants breached trust, fiduciary, and contractual duties by paying excessive trailing commissions to discount brokers from mutual fund assets.

The court granted certification, finding all five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met, including the disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and a suitable representative plaintiff with a workable plan.

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.

The Superior Court of Justice approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major Canadian banks.

The actions allege that the banks charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on single dishonoured pre-authorized debits.

The court, applying Section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found the agreements to be fair and reasonable, noting the staged success fee was comparable to or more advantageous than the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The court confirmed the agreements preserved plaintiff control over litigation, ensured the funder's financial capacity for adverse costs, and included appropriate confidentiality and deemed undertaking provisions.

The defendants took no position on the motions.

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.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Cronos Group Inc. improperly recognized revenue and overstated its U.S. goodwill and intangible assets, and that its former Chief Financial Officer failed to take appropriate steps to address revenue recognition issues.

The respondents admitted to the misconduct and entered into settlement agreements with Staff.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlements, finding that the agreed sanctions, including administrative penalties, costs, and an independent review of internal controls, were in the public interest and achieved specific and general deterrence.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of primary and excess directors' liability insurance policies, specifically regarding the availability and premium calculation of an Optional Extension Period (OEP) coverage.

The appellant, Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. (excess insurer), argued that its Excess Policy did not include an OEP option or, alternatively, that the premium should be US$1.5 million.

The respondent, Cronos Group Inc. (insured), contended the OEP was incorporated via a "follow form" clause and the premium should be twice the basic premium of the Excess Policy, consistent with the primary policy's ratio.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's finding that the Excess Policy included the OEP option and that its premium was twice the basic premium, based on a holistic interpretation of the policies and commercial reasonableness.

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 appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for class certification against an auditor.

The motion judge found that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action because settled law on auditor liability precluded a finding that the auditor owed a duty of care to unitholders of the funds.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding that the statement of claim did not plead material facts establishing an undertaking by the auditor to the unitholders for their individual investment decisions, which is required to establish sufficient proximity for a claim of pure economic loss.

The applicant, Cronos Group Inc., sought a declaration that it had a contractual right to exercise an Optional Extension Period (OEP) under its Excess Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Policy issued by the respondent, Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A., and that it successfully exercised this right.

The respondent denied coverage, arguing the OEP was not incorporated into the Excess Policy and the premium paid was insufficient.

The court found that the OEP was incorporated into the Excess Policy by reference to the Primary Policy, as it was not explicitly excluded.

The court also determined that the applicant's calculation and payment of the OEP premium, based on twice the original policy premium, was commercially reasonable and consistent with prior representations.

The application was granted, declaring the OEP right enforceable and the premium calculation valid.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

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.

This class action involved two motions: approval of three settlements totaling $39.2 million in an FX market price-fixing conspiracy case, and approval of Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the stage of the proceedings.

However, the court partially denied Class Counsel's request for $9.8 million in fees, approving only an additional $2 million, citing that the achieved recovery (5 cents on the dollar against a potential $1 billion loss) was respectable but not "very good" and that the claimed litigation risks were somewhat exaggerated given prior regulatory findings and U.S. settlements.

The court emphasized the need for diligence in approving contingency fees in settlements to ensure they are provident for class members, not just counsel.

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 defendants brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's motion for certification of a common law misrepresentation claim, arguing that the court was functus officio, the motion was res judicata, or it constituted an abuse of process.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the preferability of a stand-alone common law misrepresentation claim had already been determined and rejected in a prior certification decision.

This prior determination, which was not appealed, barred re-litigation of the issue under the doctrines of issue estoppel or abuse of process.

However, the court allowed the plaintiff to bring a motion under s. 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to continue the action as an opt-in joinder proceeding for class members with significant claims.

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.