Andrew J. Morganti

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to proceed under s. 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act, certification of a class action under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and default judgment against a defendant CEO of a cannabis company who failed to plead or appear despite extensive service efforts.

The defendant had been the subject of Mareva injunctions for moving assets internationally.

The court found the certification criteria were satisfied, granted leave under the OSA, and entered default judgment in the amount of $53,616,189 based on uncontroverted expert evidence of class-wide primary and secondary market damages arising from misrepresentations in public filings about the company's cannabis production facility.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of an $8,000,000 settlement in three related securities class actions against a cannabis company and its directors, officers, and underwriters.

The claims alleged misrepresentations regarding the company's business and the build-out of its production facility.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of 30% of the settlement amount ($2,400,000) and honoraria of $5,000 for each of the four representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in three related proposed class actions sought leave to proceed under the Securities Act, certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes, and approval of a Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing.

The actions alleged misrepresentations by a cannabis company regarding its facility expansion.

The court found the certification criteria were met for settlement purposes, granted leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and approved the form and dissemination plan for the settlement notice.

The plaintiffs moved without notice for a Norwich Order and Mareva Injunction against Benjamin Allan Ward, the former CEO of Wayland Group Corp., in connection with a proposed investors' class action under the Ontario Securities Act.

Ward had been noted in default and evaded service.

The court found evidence of Ward's history of securities fraud, improper conduct, evasion of service, and removal of assets to multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the Mareva Injunction to prevent asset dissipation pending a default judgment motion scheduled for March 10, 2026, where damages exceeding $49 million are sought on behalf of the proposed class.

This is a motion for a default judgment in a certified class proceeding.

The plaintiff, Web Objective Inc., on behalf of itself and class members, sought judgment against SociaLabra Inc. and Stewart Davis for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation related to a debenture offering.

The defendants were noted in default for failing to file a statement of defence and provide discovery.

The court applied a three-step inquiry for default judgments, finding SociaLabra and Stewart Davis jointly and severally liable for negligent misrepresentation and SociaLabra concurrently liable for breach of contract.

The court granted judgment for the full amount of damages claimed plus costs.

A putative class action had settled, subject to court approval.

A proposed intervener sought a timetable to bring a motion to intervene and be appointed representative plaintiff.

The existing parties to the action sought a timetable for the certification and settlement approval motions, arguing that the intervention motion should not be scheduled unless settlement approval was denied.

The court determined that the certification and settlement approval motions should be heard first, and the intervention motion would only be scheduled if settlement approval was not granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion for court approval of the time frame and content for the First Notice to class members, and for an order appointing class counsel to manage the escrow account, following a proposed settlement in a certified class action.

The court approved the proposed Plan of Notice for disseminating the First Notice and its content, finding it appropriate for informing class members about the settlement, their rights to object, and the upcoming settlement approval hearing.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and a representative plaintiff honorarium following the settlement of two national class proceedings (2012 and 2016 Actions) against various defendants, including Apple Inc., for an alleged eBook price-fixing conspiracy.

The aggregate settlement amount was $15,175,000.

Class Counsel sought $2.7 million in fees (25% of the Apple settlement, adjusted for Quebec) and $43,669.39 in disbursements, plus a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court addressed whether the Class Proceedings Act is a complete code for fee approval, the applicability of the Solicitors Act and its regulations regarding costs and disbursements in "all-in" settlements, and the treatment of notional cost contributions and administration costs.

The court found that the Solicitors Act provisions regarding costs and disbursements should apply harmoniously to class proceedings.

It ruled that disbursements should be deducted from the gross settlement amount, and a notional contribution to costs ($500,000) should be applied before calculating counsel fees.

Settlement administration costs were deemed not a disbursement incurred by counsel.

The court approved class counsel fees of $2,450,000 plus taxes, disbursements of $43,669.39 plus taxes, and an honorarium of $2,500 for the representative plaintiff.

This decision concerns a proposed class action for secondary market liability under the Ontario Securities Act.

The parties sought and obtained consent certification of the action, approval of the notice plan, amendment of the plaintiff's pleading to narrow the claim to statutory issues, and substitution of a new representative plaintiff.

The court found that the criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met, including commonality of issues and the appropriateness of the new representative plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the Defendant GuestLogix Inc.'s defence or compel a further and better Affidavit of Documents, arguing deficiencies including the deponent's lack of direct knowledge.

GuestLogix cross-moved for a further affidavit from the Plaintiffs and to dispense with the requirement for a signed affidavit.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding GuestLogix's affidavit, sworn by an insurer's representative, to be appropriate given the company's prior CCAA sale and lack of original personnel.

The court also found GuestLogix had complied with its production obligations.

The Defendant's cross-motion was satisfied as the Plaintiffs had delivered the requested documents.

Costs were awarded to the Defendant.

The insurer for an insolvent corporate defendant and a missing individual defendant brought a motion on short notice to intervene and appoint a litigation guardian.

The plaintiffs, who had been preparing to argue their motion for leave to proceed with a secondary market cause of action under the Securities Act, sought an adjournment due to the late service of the insurer's motion record.

The court adjourned the insurer's motion to allow the plaintiffs to respond, and consequently adjourned the plaintiffs' leave motion, as the outcome of the insurer's motion could significantly alter the defense.

The appellant, David Wong, representing a class of shareholders, appealed the summary dismissal of a secondary market misrepresentation class action against Pretium Resources Inc. and its former CEO.

The claim alleged that Pretium failed to publicly disclose concerns about its Brucejack mining project's resource estimate and feasibility study, which had been conveyed by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Strathcona's concerns were not material facts requiring disclosure because they were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and unreliable opinions, not undisputed facts.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's alternative finding that the respondents had conducted a reasonable investigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the production of documents prior to a leave motion under the Securities Act, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the corporate defendant and one individual defendant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the other individual defendant, finding that the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing the motion against him and making unfounded allegations of deliberate misconduct was unreasonable and warranted sanction.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay a total of $36,603.87 in costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a putative shareholders' class action for secondary market liability under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant made material misrepresentations regarding a cannabis facility build-out project and joint venture, which were later publicly corrected, causing a significant drop in share price.

The court found the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial, rejecting the defendant's expert economic evidence that the market had already absorbed the news.

Leave to proceed was granted.

Katanga Mining Limited applied to vary a 2018 settlement order requiring an external review of its accounting practices, which was substantially complete but delayed by the pandemic.

Staff of the Commission consented to the variation.

The Commission waived service on the individual respondents, dismissed a former investor's request for intervenor status, and granted the variation, allowing the review to conclude on terms acceptable to Katanga and the consultant.

The plaintiff sought approval of a settlement and class counsel fees in a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by the defendant regarding a cannabis cultivation project.

The court found the settlement, which exhausted available insurance and included a $1,000,000 contribution from the defendant, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the plan of allocation, a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and class counsel fees of $1,650,000, representing 30% of the settlement amount.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant mining company made secondary market misrepresentations by failing to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants regarding a mineral resource estimate.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the consultant's opinions were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and based on unreliable data.

The court held that the defendants were not obliged to disclose unreliable information, meaning there was no omission of a material fact.

In the alternative, the court found that the defendants satisfied the reasonable investigation defence under the Securities Act.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act (OSA) to bring a claim for secondary market misrepresentation against the defendant.

The claim alleged that the defendant's November 29, 2018 Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) misrepresented material facts regarding a 220,000 square foot construction project.

The defendant issued a corrective disclosure on January 8, 2019, stating the project would be completed in 2019, but this was buried in a positive press release.

Subsequent press releases on February 6 and 7, 2019, revealed the collapse of the project's financing and partnership, leading to a significant market impact.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable chance the action would succeed, emphasizing that materiality must be assessed contextually, considering the full business circumstances, not just immediate market reaction to a decontextualized disclosure.

In a proposed class action, the defendant sought to proceed with a two-day leave motion virtually via videoconference due to COVID-19 court suspensions.

The plaintiff opposed, citing logistical difficulties for a complex motion with a voluminous evidentiary record, including the inability for counsel teams to be together.

The court, while acknowledging the desire to avoid delay, declined to compel the plaintiff to proceed virtually, prioritizing due process concerns and the plaintiff's ability to present their case effectively.

The leave motion was rescheduled for an in-court hearing.

This is a timetable endorsement setting out the agreed-upon schedule for a motion.

The endorsement details the deadlines for serving motion records, responding motion records, completing cross-examinations, delivering factums, and the dates for the motion hearing.