Brandon Leslie Barnes

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

In this proposed securities class action arising from the collapse of a public issuer, the plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of claims on behalf of purchasers of notes and shares in the primary and secondary markets.

Subject to one contested issue concerning former noteholders who had assigned their notes during the class period, the motions were unopposed or proceeded on consent.

The court granted leave and certified the action, holding that the substantive dispute over whether assigned noteholder claims vested in transferees under New York law should be postponed until after certification.

The court found it procedurally preferable and fair to defer that merits issue until after a defence was delivered, thereby avoiding interlocutory delay in a large and complex class proceeding.

The defendant brought a motion requesting the Ontario court decline jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens and permit the action to proceed in England.

The claim involved allegations of kidnapping, false imprisonment, assault, torture and threats arising from events in Iran, with plaintiffs residing in Ontario and the defendant asserting stronger ties to England.

Applying the framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court considered comparative convenience, location of witnesses, ability to participate in proceedings, applicable law, and potential procedural advantages.

The court found the evidence inconclusive regarding the defendant’s ability to attend proceedings in either jurisdiction and held the defendant failed to establish that England was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The court provided reasons for declining to award costs following a consent motion to set aside a default judgment.

The moving defendant established that the statement of claim had not come to his attention and that there had been no personal service, despite a prior order validating service that allowed the plaintiffs to obtain default judgment.

The court held that where a default judgment is irregularly obtained and the defendant had no notice of the proceeding, the judgment must be set aside ex debito justiciae and the defendant should not be required to pay costs.

The court further found the plaintiffs should not recover costs because they continued to oppose the motion despite evidence demonstrating the judgment would inevitably be set aside.

The court also reconsidered an earlier direction awarding costs thrown away and concluded that such costs should not be imposed where the defendant had not actually defaulted due to lack of effective service.

The moving parties (class action plaintiffs) brought a motion to quash appeals filed by the respondent objectors.

The court found that the appellants did not have a right of appeal under s. 30(3) of the Class Proceedings Act because they were not parties to the class proceeding.

Furthermore, they did not meet the requirements of s. 30(5) as they had not obtained leave to act as a representative party for an appeal from a judgment on common issues or an aggregate assessment.

The appeals were quashed and the motion to act as representative plaintiff was dismissed.