Brittany Star Antonia Cerqua

Self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action in 2022 alleging that their investment advisor misappropriated inheritance funds deposited into a brokerage account in 2005.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment asserting no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the action was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiffs had documentary evidence of the account and its transactions in 2004 and 2005, and that they necessarily would have discovered the alleged loss of funds by 2014 when they closed all accounts with the defendants.

The court held that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 had expired well before the action was commenced in 2022.

The court further held that the plaintiffs' claim of misappropriation was unsupported by evidence and rested on conjecture, including a forensic document examiner's report given no weight for failing to comply with affidavit requirements.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

This motion for summary judgment concerned a dispute over success fees owed by mdf commerce inc. ("mdf") to Echelon Wealth Partners Inc. ("Echelon"), a financial advisor.

Echelon was engaged by mdf to source credit facilities for strategic initiatives and acquisitions.

After Echelon sourced an initial facility in 2020, mdf pursued a large acquisition in 2021, securing additional credit facilities and temporary bridge financing from the same lender (BNS) without Echelon's direct involvement, but while Echelon's advisory agreement was still in effect.

Echelon invoiced mdf for a success fee on these new facilities, arguing they constituted a "Financing Transaction" or "Related Transaction" under the agreement, and that the fees were protected post-expiry.

The court granted Echelon's motion for summary judgment, finding that the 2021 credit facilities were indeed a "Financing Transaction" and a "related transaction" as defined by the agreement, and that the protected fee clause applied.

The court also determined that the temporary bridge financing, though not drawn upon, qualified as "committed bank financing" for which a success fee was payable. mdf's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was dismissed.

In a securities class action, the plaintiff sought multiple orders in advance of a settlement approval motion.

The plaintiff requested leave to proceed against Tetra Tech, Inc. under the Securities Act, leave to discontinue common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against Tetra Tech, and certification of the action as a class proceeding against Tetra Tech for settlement purposes.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought approval to discontinue the action against the Underwriter Defendants based on a Standstill and Tolling Agreement.

The court granted all requested orders, finding that the criteria for leave and certification were met and that the discontinuance against the Underwriter Defendants would not prejudice the class.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action alleging that Uber improperly calculated Goods and Services Tax (GST) on pre-discounted Uber Eats orders, claiming violations of the Excise Tax Act (ETA), provincial consumer protection legislation, the Competition Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the certification motion, primarily finding that the claim was barred by ss. 224.1 and 312 of the ETA.

The court characterized the action as an attempt to recover tax outside the comprehensive statutory scheme provided by the ETA, which includes a rebate mechanism.

Additionally, the court identified other deficiencies, including inadequate pleadings for certain causes of action, issues with class identifiability due to varying promotional language, and a lack of commonality among proposed issues, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

This appeal concerned a medical negligence action where the appellant gynecologist failed to perform an endometrial biopsy on the deceased, Armineh Hacopian-Armen, in 2009, leading to a delayed diagnosis of Stage IV uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) and her subsequent death.

The trial judge found the gynecologist liable for breaching the standard of care and for factual and legal causation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the findings on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant's negligence caused the harm, emphasizing the deference owed to a trial judge's assessment of expert evidence and the foreseeability of the type of harm.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial judge's decision, arguing an error in failing to incorporate a rectification analysis and a finding that the appellant did not misunderstand the marriage contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a misunderstanding of the contract, thereby precluding any remedy in rectification.

The appeal was dismissed.