Belobaba

The plaintiff, former interim Commissioner of the OPP, brought a defamation action against the Premier of Ontario over public statements alleging the plaintiff breached the Police Services Act.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant's expression related to a matter of public interest, the plaintiff could not show that the defence of fair comment had no real prospect of success, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the public interest in permitting the action to continue.

The plaintiff, a shareholder of the corporate defendant, sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act following the collapse of a tailings storage facility at the defendant's mine.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known of the facility's compromised structural stability and failed to disclose it.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a public correction of the alleged misrepresentation.

The press release issued by the defendant merely stated that the facility had breached and the cause was unknown, which did not indicate that any previous disclosure was untrue or misleading.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions breached their trust and fiduciary duties by failing to disclose markup fees charged on foreign currency conversions in registered accounts.

The parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment on the common issues, and the defendants moved for decertification.

The court found that the defendants breached the trust agreements by failing to disclose the amount of the markup fees.

The court ordered an accounting of profits to be determined at a reference, emphasizing the need to deter fiduciary misconduct.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for an elevated interest rate and punitive damages, and dismissed the defendants' motion to decertify the class action.

The plaintiff pension fund sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a $3 billion secondary market securities class action against the defendant mining company.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations in three categories: capital expenditure and scheduling, environmental compliance, and accounting and financial reporting.

The court dismissed the motion for leave regarding the capital expenditure and accounting allegations, finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the public correction requirement.

However, the court granted leave to proceed with one core environmental allegation, finding a reasonable possibility that the plaintiff could establish at trial that the defendant's July 26, 2012 representation about the completion of a water management system was an untrue statement of material fact.

The defendant son moved for summary judgment to dismiss his father's action claiming a 50% partnership interest in a printing business based on an alleged 1991 oral agreement.

The court held a mini-trial to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the father's financial contribution.

Due to significant, unexplained discrepancies in the son's evidence regarding the purpose of the funds, the court concluded it could not fairly resolve the matter summarily.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a proposed securities class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's ability to maintain its dividend, causing shareholders and debenture-holders to sustain losses when the dividend was cut.

The court dismissed the leave motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the secondary market misrepresentation claims would succeed at trial, as the defendants' statements were based on a genuine belief in their growth strategy at the time.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, holding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims, which require individualized proof of reliance.

The plaintiff, a former shareholder of the corporate defendant, brought motions for leave to commence a secondary market liability action under the Securities Act and for certification as a class proceeding.

The defendants filed affidavits opposing the motions.

The plaintiff served requests to inspect hundreds of confidential documents mentioned in the affidavits under Rule 30.04(2) prior to cross-examinations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requests lacked specificity, relevance, and proportionality, and that allowing such a fishing expedition would undermine the statutory gatekeeping purpose of the Securities Act leave provisions.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.

The applicant insurer sought a declaration that the respondent insured breached statutory conditions 4(1) and 1(1) of its automobile policy after an employee, who did not hold a valid driver's licence, was involved in an accident while driving a company van.

The insurer argued the insured failed to verify the employee's licence and failed to report a material change in risk.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the insured acted reasonably in assuming the employee was licensed, as he had driven his own vehicle to work for ten years and was not hired as a driver.

The court also found no material change in risk, as the employee's use of the company van was infrequent and not habitual.