Ben Kates

The appellant appealed an order striking his Notice of Application and refusing leave to amend, which sought Charter relief against the respondents.

The motion judge found the Charter claim could not succeed, was a collateral attack on a Law Society decision, and that the Charter did not apply to the individual respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the Charter interpretation or application, and that summary determination was not an abuse of process.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's motion for review of a single judge's order regarding joint representation, deeming it frivolous and an abuse of process.

The applicant, Andrew Spasiw, sought a declaration that the respondents (Law Society of Ontario, McMillan LLP, David Milosevic, and Benjamin Bathgate) violated his Charter rights and a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The respondents brought motions to strike the Notice of Application without leave to amend, arguing it was an abuse of process (collateral attack) and disclosed no viable cause of action.

The court granted the motions to strike, finding that the application was a collateral attack on the LSO's complaints process and that the Charter claims against the LSO and the private lawyers had no prospect of success, as the Charter does not apply to private entities in this context and the LSO is immune from damages for good faith acts.

Leave to amend was denied as the deficiencies could not be cured.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a settlement reached with the defendants Morgan Stanley and Morgan Stanley Canada Limited in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement requires the settling defendants to pay USD$2.3 million and provide cooperation in the ongoing prosecution against the remaining defendants.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was in line with previously approved settlements in the proceeding.

The settlement and the previously approved distribution protocol were approved.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to shut down several medical cannabis dispensaries operating in violation of its zoning by-laws.

The dispensary operators brought a cross-motion seeking an interlocutory exemption from the by-laws and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing that the existing regulatory scheme failed to provide reasonable access to medical cannabis.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the balance of convenience favoured the City, as there is a presumption that validly enacted laws serve the public interest.

The court granted the City's injunction but declined to issue an order directing police enforcement, noting the lack of statutory authority for such an order in a civil proceeding.

The operators' cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture after its month‑to‑month commercial tenancy at the Ontario Food Terminal was terminated.

The tenant argued that the landlord lacked cause or a legitimate business reason for termination and that the notice failed to comply with the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court held that the lease expressly permitted termination by either party on 30 days’ written notice and that the tenancy was properly terminated in accordance with both the agreement and the statute.

The court rejected the argument that the Ontario Food Terminal Board required cause or a legitimate business justification to exercise its contractual termination right.

Relief from forfeiture was therefore unavailable because the lease had been terminated pursuant to its terms rather than forfeited for breach.