Andrew McCoomb

The applicant, operator of the Canadian Securities Exchange, sought a permanent injunction and take-down order against the respondent, a stock promoter.

Following the exchange's objection to the respondent serving on the board of a listed issuer, the respondent engaged in a sustained campaign of online harassment and defamation against the exchange and its personnel.

The court found the respondent's statements were clearly defamatory and not protected by defences of justification, fair comment, or responsible communication, as they were malicious, baseless, and irresponsible.

The court granted a permanent injunction restricting the respondent from making public allegations about the exchange's personnel, imposing specific content restrictions regarding the exchange, and ordering the removal of the defamatory posts.

The applicant, newly self-represented, sought an adjournment of a long-scheduled merits hearing two weeks before it was to commence.

He argued he needed time to prepare, respond to a parallel injunction hearing, and gather new evidence.

The Capital Markets Tribunal applied the test under subrule 34(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which requires exceptional circumstances to grant an adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's change in representation, the parallel proceeding, and his desire to adduce new evidence did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The adjournment motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Internet Sciences Inc., failed to attend a case management hearing and refused to participate in the proceeding unless its demands, including the removal of the adjudicator for alleged bias, were met.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence, dismissing its motion to remove the Ontario Securities Commission as a party and its motion for the adjudicator's recusal, finding no factual basis for the bias allegations.

Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety on the basis that it had been abandoned due to the applicant's refusal to participate and cooperate with the Tribunal's process.

The applicant securities exchange sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from publishing defamatory statements on social media and harassing its employees.

The respondent, a shareholder and publisher, had engaged in a campaign accusing the applicant and its personnel of fraud, corruption, and other criminal conduct.

The court found the statements clearly defamatory and concluded that defences of justification or fair comment would inevitably fail.

The court granted the injunction, prohibiting the respondent from contacting the applicant's employees and from making further defamatory statements pending the hearing of the application.

The applicant, a self-represented reporting issuer, brought a motion seeking the recusal of the adjudicator for a reasonable apprehension of bias, and a motion to vary the adjudicator's prior reasons for decision under s. 144.1 of the Securities Act.

The bias allegations stemmed from the adjudicator's conduct during a case management hearing, including cautioning the applicant about citing non-existent rules and the potential for artificial intelligence hallucinations.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator also dismissed the motion to vary, concluding that the requested variations were merely attempts to tinker with the language of the reasons and were not in the public interest.

An alternative request for a permanent confidentiality order over the reasons was also dismissed.

The plaintiffs, an elevator maintenance company and its parent corporation, brought an urgent ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction and other injunctions restraining a former president and CEO, his wife, and their competing corporation from using the plaintiffs' credit cards or funds, soliciting customers or employees, and from making unauthorized changes to corporate governance documents.

The court found extraordinary urgency and a strong prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of corporate funds, misappropriation of corporate opportunity, conspiracy, and breach of a unanimous shareholder agreement.

Interim injunctions were granted restraining the defendants from using corporate funds and soliciting customers and employees, and restraining the individual defendant from altering corporate documents or breaching his fiduciary duties.

The Mareva injunction was refused on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a serious risk the defendant would remove or dissipate assets before judgment.

The applicant, a self-represented corporate entity, sought a review of a decision denying its application for listing on the Canadian Securities Exchange.

At a case management hearing, the applicant requested a highly compressed timeline for hearing its interlocutory motions and the merits application.

The Tribunal rejected the compressed timeline, noting the need for amended materials, proper disclosure, and adequate preparation time.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the exchange of materials and scheduled oral hearings by videoconference for the motions and the application.

The Tribunal also relieved the self-represented applicant from strict compliance with Rule 21, allowing it to file a list of documents instead of a formal motion record.

The court approved a $500 million settlement in a national class action concerning a price-fixing conspiracy in the packaged bread market, resolving claims against Loblaw Companies Limited and related entities.

The settlement includes a substantial damages payment, a distribution protocol for class members, and a cooperation agreement by Loblaw to assist in ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The court also approved class counsel fees and the payout to a third-party funder, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a “Material Adverse Change” (MAC) clause in a governance agreement between Simpson Oil Limited (SOL) and Parkland Corporation.

The court found that the departures of Parkland’s CFO and a majority of its senior management constituted a MAC under the agreement, thereby lifting restrictions on SOL’s voting and acquisition rights.

The decision turns on whether certain events listed in the MAC definition are mandatory triggers or merely illustrative, and the court concludes they are mandatory.

The court granted an extension of an interim interlocutory and mandatory order restraining the transfer, access, and use of the internet domain "ditlabs.io" pending the outcome of the action.

The decision addresses the requirements for a Mareva injunction, including the presence of a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience.

The court found that KNNX Corp. had established a strong prima facie case that it was the rightful owner of the domain, that there was a risk of irreparable harm if the injunction was not extended, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

The order was granted to preserve the status quo and prevent dissipation of the domain asset.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to reconsider a previous certification ruling that dismissed the action against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (MLF) in a class action alleging price-fixing.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify the action against MLF, presenting new evidence including a Second Information to Obtain (ITO), MLF's annual reports, Canada Bread's Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) from a criminal proceeding, and emails from Canada Bread's files.

MLF opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to exclude the new evidence and strike the Plaintiffs' amended claims.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the 'new evidence' was either not new, inadmissible hearsay, or did not substantively alter the lack of a viable cause of action against MLF.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation, stating that a certification dismissal for lack of cause of action is a final order and cannot be revisited without meeting a strict test for new evidence (Sagaz test), which was not met here.

The court also granted MLF's motion to exclude the evidence and strike the amended statements of claim against MLF.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a proposed settlement in a class action against Symantec Corporation concerning defective NortonTM-branded security software.

The settlement, valued at approximately $21.7 million, includes cash payments, free licenses, and discount codes for 640,000 Ontario class members.

After 7 years of litigation, discovery, and mediations, the parties reached an arm's length agreement.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite a small number of objections.

The appellants appealed a certification order in a price-fixing class action regarding packaged bread.

They argued the motions judge erred by excluding indirect purchasers who bought bread from non-defendant retailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly settled the certification order to reflect his reasons and the nature of the single conspiracy pleaded, which required the product to pass through both a defendant producer and a defendant retailer.

The respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after successfully defending an application to wind up the company.

The applicant argued for no costs or reduced costs, citing the respondent's failure to upload a Bill of Costs in advance and claiming the fees were excessive.

The court found the respondent's claimed costs to be fair and reasonable, noting the application's importance and moderate complexity, and that the applicant's own costs were comparable.

The court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent in the amount of $142,890.01.

The applicant, a co-founder and former CTO of the respondent technology company, brought an application to wind up the company under section 207 of the Business Corporations Act.

The applicant alleged the company could not continue its business due to its liabilities and that a breakdown in the relationship between the founders made it just and equitable to wind up the company.

The court dismissed the application, finding the company had recently raised significant capital and was not insolvent.

The court also held that while there was a breakdown of trust, the company was not a two-person partnership, and winding up was not a just and equitable remedy given the presence of other investors and employees.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a construction lien action, seeking a determination that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied to their residential cost-plus construction contract and that the plaintiff breached the CPA by exceeding budget estimates by more than 10 percent.

The court granted the motion in part, declaring that the CPA applies to the contract and that it is a 'consumer agreement'.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the specific budget line items constituted 'estimates' under the CPA and whether the parties had agreed to amend those estimates during the project.

The court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.