Caitlin R. Sainsbury

The court considered the allocation and quantum of costs following summary judgment in favour of Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), where the third party, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited (CCCL), sought costs from the plaintiff, 863880 Ontario Limited.

The court found that exceptional circumstances justified ordering the plaintiff to pay CCCL’s costs, but not the full amount claimed.

The court directed a revised calculation, holding the plaintiff responsible for half of CCCL’s reasonable costs up to the discontinuance of a related third party claim, and all reasonable costs thereafter, subject to a 20% reduction and further specific deductions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Binance's appeal from the certification of a class action brought by Canadian investors who purchased cryptocurrency derivatives through Binance.

The court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim disclosed reasonable causes of action under both the Securities Act and at common law, and that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court rejected Binance’s arguments regarding the statutory and common law causes of action, the commonality of issues, and the appropriateness of class-wide remedies, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The defendants in several related class actions brought motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' actions were statute-barred by limitation periods or were a nullity for failing to obtain leave to commence.

The court adjourned the limitation period motions, finding they overlapped with common issues in earlier certified class actions.

The court dismissed the motions based on the leave requirement, interpreting the certification orders' leave provisions as applying only to competing class actions representing the same class members, not to actions by different classes arising from the same factual matrix.

The appellant, Binance Holdings Limited, appealed a motion judge's order dismissing its motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.

The underlying dispute involved a proposed class action by purchasers of cryptocurrency derivatives against Binance for alleged violations of the Ontario Securities Act.

The motion judge had found the arbitration clause void due to public policy and unconscionability, and that exceptions to the competence-competence principle applied, allowing the court to decide the validity of the arbitration clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the arbitration clause was inaccessible and unconscionable, effectively insulating Binance from meaningful challenge, and that the court properly exercised jurisdiction over the validity of the arbitration agreement.

The defendant FundEX brought a motion for default judgment on its crossclaim against the co-defendants (the Reeves defendants) to recover indemnity for a $2.29 million settlement paid to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' action alleged that Reeves, a FundEX employee, defrauded them of their investments.

FundEX settled the main action and noted the Reeves defendants in default on the crossclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for default judgment because FundEX's crossclaim failed to plead the material facts necessary to claim indemnity for a settlement under section 2 of the Negligence Act.

The dismissal was without prejudice, granting FundEX leave to amend its crossclaim and bring a new motion.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against Binance for illegal sales of cryptocurrency derivative products without registration or prospectus, contrary to the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The court granted certification, finding a recognizable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common issues suitable for class-wide determination, including liability and remedies like rescission and aggregate damages.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the mechanical impossibility of rescission and the unfeasibility of aggregate damages, noting a lack of factual basis for their claims of user-to-user contracts.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding refusals on cross-examinations in a proposed class action.

The plaintiff's motion for refusals was largely dismissed, while the Solart defendants' cross-motion regarding the plaintiff's refusals was allowed.

The court considered various factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct." While the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was deemed unreasonable, it did not generally meet this high threshold, except in the case of Martin Yockell, where class counsel's conduct during cross-examination was found to be reprehensible, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court also addressed the recoverability of costs for pro bono counsel and costs thrown away.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against Binance for selling crypto derivatives products without filing a prospectus, contrary to the Securities Act.

Binance brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong, relying on an arbitration agreement in its online terms of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement void ab initio as contrary to public policy and unconscionable, given the disproportionate cost of arbitration in Hong Kong compared to the average investor's claim and the inequality of bargaining power in the standard form 'click' contract.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by various defendants during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a certification motion.

The Solart defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions he refused during his cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the questions posed to the defendants were irrelevant, unanswerable, or sought legal opinions.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend and answer questions related to the common issues, as they were relevant to testing the certification requirements.

Binance Holdings Limited applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal under s. 144(1) of the Securities Act to revoke an investigation order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission under s. 11.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing on whether it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the 2022 amendments to the Securities Act separated the Commission's executive and adjudicative functions, and that the word 'Commission' in s. 144(1) does not include the Tribunal.

Consequently, only the Commission, exercising its executive function, can revoke its own s. 11 order.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) to fund a class action against the defendants.

The court examined the LFA under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, assessing whether it was in the best interests of the class, furthered access to justice, was not champertous, and did not interfere with the lawyer-client relationship.

The court found the LFA fair, reasonable, and compliant with statutory requirements, noting the funder's financial capacity and undertaking for costs.

The motion was granted, and an order was also made designating class counsel and precluding similar actions without notice and leave.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

The applicants subscribed for flow-through shares in mining companies, which renounced Canadian exploration expenses to them.

The CRA later reassessed the companies and the applicants, disallowing the expenses.

The applicants sought immediate indemnification from the respondent under their subscription agreements for the taxes paid under the reassessments.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the indemnities were not payable until the amount of taxes was 'definitively determined' or 'determined', which had not yet occurred as the respondent's appeal of the CRA reassessment was still pending.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion to stay a production order issued by Perell J. pending the disposition of their appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and ordered the stay.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of settlement agreements totaling $7.9 million with seven defendant groups in multiple class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court also considered the approval of a distribution protocol, discontinuances and dismissals against certain defendants, representative plaintiff honoraria, and class counsel's 25% contingency fees.

The court found the settlements, distribution protocol, and fees to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and granted all requested approvals.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent entered into a settlement agreement regarding allegations that the respondent engaged in the business of trading and advising in securities and acted as an investment fund manager without registration.

The respondent raised approximately $25 million from investors over a 10-year period through a limited partnership.

The respondent had reasonably relied in good faith on legal advice that registration was not required.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, which included a voluntary payment of $1,600,000, costs of $100,000, and an undertaking not to apply for registration for one year, finding it to be in the public interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of four settlements totaling over $25 million with TD, RBC, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank in a class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of Class Counsel's fees of approximately $10.2 million.

The court found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks and the substantial results achieved.

The court also approved the requested Class Counsel fees, recognizing the risk undertaken and the successful outcome.

The moving parties sought an interlocutory stay of an order requiring them to disclose identifying information of primary market investors, pending their motion for leave to appeal that order.

The Divisional Court granted the stay on an interim basis, finding that the motion for leave to appeal had some prospect of success, the moving parties would suffer irreparable harm if the disclosure was made before the leave motion was decided, and the balance of convenience favoured a brief delay.

The court emphasized that interim stays pending leave to appeal should be addressed expeditiously to minimize prejudice.

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 plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against TD, RBC, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank in a case alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the futures exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion, approving the settlement agreements and the plan of dissemination.