Bryn Gray

The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of a Special Committee report, three due diligence legal opinions, and answers to questions about missing marijuana inventory.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Special Committee report and the legal opinions were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the privilege had not been waived.

The court also held that the questions regarding the missing marijuana were irrelevant and disproportionate.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Aphria Inc., its directors/officers, and several underwriters, alleging misrepresentations in both the primary and secondary markets regarding two corporate acquisitions.

The plaintiff sought leave to discontinue certain claims, leave to assert secondary market claims under the Securities Act, and certification of the class action.

The court granted the discontinuances and leave for the secondary market claims, certifying them on consent.

For the primary market claims against the underwriters, the court held that the 'Ragoonanan Principle' still applies in Ontario, meaning a representative plaintiff must have a direct cause of action against each defendant.

Since the plaintiff only purchased shares in the secondary market, it could not represent primary market purchasers.

However, the court conditionally certified the primary market claims, giving class counsel 100 days to recruit an eligible representative plaintiff who purchased shares in the prospectus offering.

The appellants, Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and Ontario, appealed an arbitration decision that found they breached the Gaming Revenue Sharing and Financial Agreement (GRSFA) by ceasing to share certain non-gaming and complimentary revenues with the respondent, Ontario First Nations (2008) Limited Partnership.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for commercial arbitrations remains reasonableness post-Vavilov.

The court found the arbitration panel's contractual interpretation was reasonable, firmly rooted in the agreement's text and surrounding circumstances, and that the honour of the Crown doctrine was correctly applied to the government-to-government agreement.

The successful defendants in a proposed class action sought costs of $1,000,455.22 on a partial indemnity basis following a dispositive jurisdiction motion.

The unsuccessful plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the case raised novel and important issues regarding the jurisdictional reach of Ontario courts over foreign defendants in securities matters, or alternatively, that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the litigation was entrepreneurial rather than altruistic, and that the issues were not novel in a way that justified departing from the normal loser-pays rule.

The court concluded that the defendants' costs, including substantial expert witness fees, were fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff given the $8 billion value of the claim.

The defendants were awarded their costs as requested.

The plaintiff brought a proposed global class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 against a foreign holding company and its former employee, alleging misrepresentations in the secondary market regarding anti-money laundering compliance and Libor/Euribor manipulation.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a declaration that the corporate defendant was a 'responsible issuer' under the Securities Act.

The court found that the corporate defendant did not carry on business in Ontario and rebutted any presumptive connecting factors, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

Furthermore, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The statutory claims were dismissed and the common law claims were stayed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The trial judge had found that the appellant, who was highly intoxicated, drove the vehicle with a flat tire during a 911 call placed by a passenger.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in excluding hearsay statements from two witnesses claiming one of them had been driving and in misapprehending the 911 call evidence.

The court held the hearsay statements were properly excluded because the defence made no reasonable efforts to secure the witnesses’ testimony and therefore failed to establish necessity under the principled hearsay exception.

The court also held that the trial judge reasonably inferred from the 911 call and surrounding evidence that the appellant had driven the vehicle.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.