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 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 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 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 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.

RageOn Inc., an online retailer using Shopify's platform, sought an interim injunction to restore its access to Shopify's services after Shopify terminated their agreement.

Shopify terminated the agreement due to RageOn's repeated violations of its Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), which prohibits hateful content and content associated with terrorist organizations.

RageOn argued the termination was premature, the breaches were not material, and Shopify acted in bad faith.

The court applied the modified RJR-MacDonald test for mandatory interlocutory injunctions, requiring RageOn to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court found RageOn failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.

Consequently, RageOn's motion was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to extend the time for service of a statement of claim.

The appellant became aware of the facts giving rise to the claim in December 2012, issued the statement of claim in March 2015, but deliberately did not serve it for three years.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's refusal to extend the time, finding that the appellant's tactical decision to delay service beyond the rules' timeframe was a relevant and adverse factor.

The respondent was entitled to rely on presumptive prejudice from the expiry of the limitation period, and actual prejudice was demonstrated by the length of delay.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $5.47 million 'ice breaker' settlement with the Deutsche Bank defendants in two proposed class actions alleging price-fixing in the international gold and silver markets.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable despite the $1 billion damages claim, because the settlement amount was consistent with parallel U.S. settlements and the non-monetary cooperation from Deutsche Bank was of inestimable value.

The court also approved class counsel's request for an interim fee award of a 25% contingency fee plus disbursements, noting that such awards promote early settlement and lessen the financial burden on class counsel in complex conspiracy cases.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff deliberately delayed serving the claim due to a lack of funds.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's deliberate decision not to serve the claim constituted intentional and contumelious delay.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

Both the plaintiff and defendant brought motions for security for costs.

The plaintiff, Crossover Health Care Fund, LLC, sought security for costs against the defendant's counterclaim, arguing the defendant, Pivotal Therapeutics Inc., had insufficient assets and that significant aspects of the counterclaim were statute-barred.

The defendant, Pivotal Therapeutics Inc., sought security for costs against the plaintiff's main action, arguing the plaintiff was not ordinarily resident in Ontario.

The court granted both motions, ordering the defendant to post $80,000 in security for costs for its counterclaim and the plaintiff to post $45,000 in security for costs for its defence to the main action.

The court found the defendant's valuation of its assets, particularly intellectual property not owned by it, was insufficient to demonstrate solvency for a costs order.

The court also found that many aspects of the counterclaim appeared to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and did not have a real possibility of success.

The plaintiffs in 42 class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry sought judicial approval for 15 discrete settlements with Aisan, Bosch, Melco, and Omron defendants, totaling CDN$13,483,524.

The court also considered a motion to discontinue certain actions against Bosch and approved class counsel's contingency fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlements fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, falling within a zone of reasonableness when compared to related U.S. settlements.

The appellant's employment was terminated in October 2012.

In December 2012, the appellant entered into a settlement agreement and release with the respondent.

In October 2014, the appellant commenced an action for wrongful dismissal, defamation, and conversion of his book of business.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss under Rule 21.01(3)(d) based on the settlement agreement and release.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of good faith, no fraudulent misrepresentation, and that the settlement agreement was neither unconscionable nor unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge improperly treated the Rule 21.01(3)(d) motion as a summary judgment motion and made findings of fact that were inappropriate at that stage.