Brendan O’Grady

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a Letter Rogatory issued by a Florida court in a matrimonial dispute, seeking to examine the respondent, a non-party in Ontario.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicant had not met the preconditions for enforcement.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the evidence sought was not otherwise available.

Specifically, the applicant had not taken steps in the foreign proceeding to compel her husband to answer the questions that were being posed to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Victoria Smith, brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Shaun Rothberg (also known as Shaun Rootenberg), to recover damages for breach of trust arising from a romance fraud.

Ms. Smith had previously set the case down for trial, requiring leave to bring the motion.

She also sought to dismiss the action against other defendants with whom she had settled.

The court granted leave for the summary judgment motion, finding it would provide a faster and cheaper resolution than a trial.

The court relied on Mr. Rootenberg's prior criminal conviction for fraud related to the same funds, applying section 22.1 of the Evidence Act and the doctrine of abuse of process to prevent re-litigation of the established facts.

The court found Mr. Rootenberg breached an express or resulting trust.

Judgment was granted against Mr. Rootenberg for $558,456 plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The action against the other defendants was dismissed without costs, as they had settled and Mr. Rootenberg had not filed a cross-claim.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiffs had moved to England and were no longer resident in Ontario.

The court accepted that the threshold requirement under Rule 56.01(1)(a) was met because the plaintiffs resided outside the jurisdiction.

However, after assessing the second stage of the analysis, the court concluded that requiring security would be unjust.

The plaintiffs demonstrated that posting security would cause financial hardship and the court found the personal injury action had strong merits, including a likely finding of liability in a rear-end collision and medical evidence supporting a permanent impairment meeting the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

Balancing the competing interests, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The plaintiff condominium owner sought certification of a class action arising from allegedly defective balcony railings at a Toronto condominium complex.

After a railing detached and fell, engineering reports concluded the guard-rail assemblies did not comply with the applicable Ontario Building Code, requiring removal and replacement of all balcony railings and resulting in extended restrictions on balcony use.

The proposed class consisted of persons who owned, rented, or resided in units whose balconies were inaccessible during the remediation period.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action in negligence and breach of contract, that an identifiable class and common issues existed, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

Certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was therefore granted.