Andrea R. Laing

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.

The appellants, former employees of CMHC, sought to certify class proceedings claiming that CMHC breached its duties by failing to partially terminate its pension plan and distribute the surplus to them after a workforce downsizing.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused to certify the common issues, finding no viable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the court lacks jurisdiction to order an employer to partially terminate a pension plan or to award damages premised on a partial termination.

The court also upheld the refusal to certify a misrepresentation claim and the denial of costs out of the pension fund.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify additional common issues in an existing class action and refusing certification of a proposed related class action.

The claims arose from the distribution of a pension plan surplus following corporate downsizing.

The appellants sought to certify issues related to the partial termination of the pension plan, ownership of the surplus, and estoppel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the court lacks jurisdiction to order a partial termination of a pension plan, and that the other proposed common issues were either inextricably linked to the partial termination claim, already covered by existing certified issues, or inappropriate for certification because they required individual assessments of reliance.

Class counsel appealed an order fixing their fees at $6.3 million plus GST, which was approximately half the amount agreed upon in their contingency fee agreements.

The motion judge had reduced the base fee by 25% and applied a multiplier of 2.6, finding the requested $12 million fee excessive in relation to the $40 million settlement recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge applied the proper test, considered all relevant factors, and made no palpable and overriding error in determining a fair and reasonable fee.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class action against Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited.

The proposed class action alleged that the respondent's cigarettes were defectively designed because they posed an unreasonable risk of igniting residential fires.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's findings that the proposed class definitions were unacceptably merits-based, that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to overwhelming individual causation issues, and that the proposed litigation plan was unworkable.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in costs, subject to a reduction for an unsuccessful appeal regarding two U.S. companies and the unsatisfactory nature of the statement of claim.

The two U.S. respondents were awarded costs of $5,856.53 and $500, respectively.

The appellant, who had been discharged from bankruptcy, was denied credit because the respondent credit reporting agencies allegedly included statute-barred debts in his credit report contrary to the Consumer Reporting Act.

The appellant brought a proposed class action in negligence.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding policy reasons against recognizing a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the Canadian respondents, holding that a prima facie duty of care exists based on proximity and foreseeability, analogous to negligent misrepresentation, and that policy considerations do not make it plain and obvious that the claim should be struck at this stage.

The claims against the American parent companies were struck for failing to plead sufficient material facts.