Anthony O’Brien

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify the proceeding as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleges that the defendant improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets.

The court found that all certification criteria were met, relying on previous decisions in similar cases, and granted the certification order.

Voyager Digital Ltd. applied under Part IV of the CCAA for an Initial Recognition Order of its Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

The central issue was whether the US proceeding should be recognized as a 'foreign main proceeding' or a 'foreign non-main proceeding', which depended on determining the company's Centre of Main Interests (COMI).

Despite being incorporated in British Columbia and listed on the TSX, the court found that the company's COMI was in the US, where its operations, management, and principal assets were located.

The court recognized the US proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and granted the requested stay.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and to certify the proceeding as a class action.

The claim alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material risks regarding the potential suspension of a mining license in Guatemala due to a lack of indigenous consultation.

The court found that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial based on credible expert evidence regarding Guatemalan law and economic materiality.

The court granted leave and certified the global class action, rejecting the defendants' objections regarding the representative plaintiff and the inclusion of foreign shareholders.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against BMO Investments Inc. on behalf of investors who held BMO Mutual Funds through discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged that BMO Investments improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets, despite discount brokers providing no investment advice.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the Trustee Act, prospectus misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment all disclosed viable causes of action.

The court certified the class action, including a common issue for aggregate damages, and set the class end date as the date of the certification order.

The defendant in a proposed class action regarding mutual fund trailing commissions sought a direction that its proposed summary judgment motion be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's certification motion.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the summary judgment motion would require significant responding evidence, lengthy cross-examinations, and would increase expense and delay.

The court held that hearing the certification motion first would be more efficient and could narrow the issues for any subsequent summary judgment motion.

The Quebec Plaintiffs and the Defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. dated November 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,500 were ordered payable by each of the moving parties to the responding Ontario Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in a Quebec class action and the defendants brought motions to stay a parallel Ontario class action alleging securities misrepresentations.

The moving parties argued the Ontario action was duplicative and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario action was more comprehensive and not duplicative of the Quebec action when it was filed.

The court held that issues of preferability between parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are better addressed at the certification stage rather than through a pre-certification stay motion for abuse of process.

In a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs sought to add BMO and TD as defendants.

BMO and TD argued the claims were statute-barred.

On cross-examination for the joinder motion, the plaintiffs' deponent refused to answer questions about a settlement proffer from another defendant, which the plaintiffs claimed was the source of discovering the claims against BMO and TD.

BMO and TD brought a motion to compel answers.

The court ordered the deponent to answer the questions, finding that the evidence was relevant to rebutting the presumption of discovery under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that any privilege attaching to the proffer had been waived when the plaintiffs voluntarily relied on it.

Following dismissal of the defendants’ motion for leave to appeal orders made in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the complexity of the class action and the substantial materials filed but found the hourly rates claimed by counsel excessive.

The court also reduced photocopying disbursements due to unnecessary duplication.

The plaintiff was awarded reduced costs reflecting reasonable fees and adjusted disbursements.

The receiver moved for approval of the sale of a golf course property.

The respondent, the first mortgagor, opposed the sale and brought a motion to redeem the first mortgage.

The court approved the sale and dismissed the motion to redeem, finding that the receiver's sales process was reasonable and met the Soundair principles.

The court held that allowing redemption at the last minute would undermine the integrity of the court-approved sales process, especially given the respondent's bad faith interference with the purchaser.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a prior ruling on a motion for leave to commence a statutory cause of action for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The earlier decision granted leave for some alleged misrepresentations but dismissed others, including allegations relating to revenue recognition in the issuer’s 2008 financial statements.

The parties requested clarification regarding whether the alleged misrepresentation in the issuer’s October 14, 2009 Management’s Discussion and Analysis concerning revenue recognition had been determined.

The court held that although there was likely an internal control deficiency relating to revenue recognition at the time of the MD&A, there was no evidence that the deficiency, standing alone, was material.

Leave was therefore refused and the motion dismissed with respect to that alleged misrepresentation.

A shareholder sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a statutory secondary market misrepresentation action under s. 138.3 against a solar energy company and two of its officers.

The alleged misrepresentations concerned financial statements, internal control disclosures, and statements incorporated into a prospectus supplement.

The court held that the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable possibility of success regarding alleged misrepresentations in the issuer’s original Q4 2009 financial statements and the October 2009 prospectus supplement, including related press releases and conference calls.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient evidence of misrepresentation in earlier 2009 interim financial statements or the 2008 revenue recognition disclosure.

Leave was granted in part and refused in part.

In a class proceeding relating to alleged misconduct involving a public corporation, the court addressed a correction to a prior costs decision.

The earlier reasons contained a factual error regarding the quantum of costs awarded to certain defendants on a motion to amend.

On consent of the parties, the court corrected the error and revised the amount payable.

The corrected award granted the defendants all‑inclusive costs for the amendments motion in a lower amount than originally stated.

Following an earlier decision dismissing a motion by the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim and rejecting most of their requested changes to a discovery plan in a securities class action, the court addressed costs.

The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for both the amendments motion and the discovery plan motion.

The court held that the amendments motion was a significant and high-stakes procedural dispute in complex class proceedings and that the defendants’ claimed costs were within the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

The court also found that the plaintiffs’ demands regarding the discovery plan were disproportionate and that the defendants were the successful party on that motion.

Costs were awarded to the defendants both for the amendments motion and, in any event of the cause, for the discovery plan motion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer questions and produce documents refused during cross-examination on an affidavit filed in response to a certification motion in a proposed securities class proceeding.

The dispute concerned the interpretation of s. 138.8(2) of the Ontario Securities Act, which governs affidavit evidence on a motion for leave to commence a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1.

The plaintiff argued that because the defendants filed an affidavit addressing certification, they should be required to answer questions relevant to the leave motion.

The court followed the line of authority beginning with Ainslie v. CV Technologies Inc. holding that defendants are only required to file an affidavit if they intend to lead evidence on the leave motion.

As the defendants had intentionally filed no affidavit addressing the leave motion, they could not be compelled to answer questions for that purpose.

The plaintiffs sought consent certification of a proposed securities class action alleging that the defendant mining company and certain officers misrepresented the scope and impact of water inflow problems at a Quebec gold mine, causing losses to purchasers of the company’s shares.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and, given the parties’ consent and the evidentiary record, found that the statutory criteria were satisfied.

The plaintiffs also sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act to pursue statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims.

The court held that the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

Certification and leave were granted.

In a reference under the Construction Lien Act, multiple contractors sought to enforce their claims for lien against the owner and mortgagees of a townhouse development.

The owner had defaulted, and a subsequent mortgagee posted security under s. 44(1) to vacate the liens and facilitate the sale of the remaining units.

The court determined the timeliness and quantum of the various lien claims.

The court held that because the mortgagee chose to post security under s. 44(1) rather than s. 78(10), the liens ceased to attach to the premises and instead became a charge on the posted security in full, rather than being limited to the holdback deficiency.

Alternatively, the court found the mortgagee had acted as an 'owner' under the Act by taking over the completion and sale of the project.