Aria Laskin

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their action against their investment advisors.

The action had been dismissed for delay after plaintiffs' counsel, who was suffering from severe health issues, failed to meet a set-down deadline and was unaware of the dismissal order for nearly two years.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master made palpable and overriding errors of fact by concluding the delay was deliberate and that the plaintiffs had abandoned the action.

Applying a contextual approach, the Court held that the minimal prejudice to the defendants was outweighed by the severe prejudice to the plaintiffs of losing their right of action due to their counsel's inadvertence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for delay.

The action against the respondents was commenced in 2004 alleging wrongful disclosure of confidential financial information by an employee of Canada Permanent Trust Company to the RCMP during a criminal investigation.

By 2016, the action had not progressed beyond the pleading stage despite being subject to a common timetable with another related action (the RCMP Action).

The motion judge found the delay inexcusable, attributing it to the appellant's decision to prioritize the RCMP Action over the Canada Permanent Action.

The motion judge also found that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the death of a key witness.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge's analysis was well-supported by evidence and that the appellant's failure to advance the action over 12 years, despite court orders for joint case management, constituted inexcusable delay.

In a proposed national class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. §1782 to compel pre-certification discovery from a non-party, Bloomberg LP.

The defendants brought a motion to enjoin the plaintiffs from taking any steps in furtherance of the subpoena without authorization from the Ontario court.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had circumvented Ontario's rules and jurisprudence regarding the discovery of non-parties and pre-certification discovery in class actions.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to control its own process and regulate the examination of non-parties for an Ontario action.

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 appellants appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal confirming the director's issuance of renewable energy approvals for two wind turbine projects.

They argued that section 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a two-step process shifting the onus to the approval-holder, that the tribunal erred in rejecting the material contribution test for causation, and that they were denied procedural fairness when an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statute imposes a single onus on the appellants to prove harm, the material contribution test was properly rejected, and the tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment.