Caitlin R. Sainsbury

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order to permit them to obtain soil and groundwater samples from a neighbouring property owned by a non-party, after the action had been set down for trial.

The plaintiffs sought the samples to allow their expert to perform forensic environmental testing to respond to the defendants' expert reports regarding PCB contamination.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding the expert's need for additional sampling constituted an unexpected change in circumstances.

The court also granted the inspection order, concluding that the testing would be useful and probative in determining whether the contaminants on the plaintiffs' property originated from the neighbouring property.

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.

Class Counsel brought a motion for approval of a further instalment of fees in an ongoing competition law class action regarding alleged price-fixing in the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs had settled with fourteen groups of defendants and the action continued against the remaining non-settling defendants.

The court reviewed the risks undertaken, the results achieved, and the docketed time, finding the requested fees of $6,325,000, plus costs and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable.

The fee request was approved.

The plaintiffs in a class action regarding foreign exchange price fixing brought a motion to amend the Distribution Protocol for the $110 million settlement proceeds.

The proposed amendments included transferring unused funds from the Indirect Claims Fund to the Direct Claims Fund, setting a minimum $1,000 payout for approved Direct Claimants, and removing the requirement to consider compensation received in other jurisdictions.

The court granted the motion, finding the amendments were administrative, imposed no additional burden on the defendants, and fell within the court's broad discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Class counsel moved for approval of an interim fee award and disbursements following a $250,000 settlement with the Bank of Montreal defendants in a class action.

The court reviewed the requested fees of $62,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $119,800.83, plus taxes.

Applying the factors for assessing the reasonableness of class counsel fees, the court found the request fair and reasonable and approved the fee award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement with the Bank of Montreal (BMO) defendants in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement amount was $250,000.

The court found that the case against BMO was significantly weaker than against other defendants, as BMO's trading operations accounted for less than 1% of the market and no regulatory findings had been made against it.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement agreement.

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 brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

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 default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and for summary judgment against the mutual fund dealer, FundEx, on the basis of vicarious liability.

The court granted default judgment against the advisor and his companies, finding the elements of civil fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were established based on deemed admissions.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment against FundEx, concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the advisor's wrongful acts were sufficiently connected to his authorized conduct to impose vicarious liability, and whether the plaintiffs' claims were discoverable outside the limitation period.

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.

The plaintiffs moved for an interlocutory injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant preventing the defendants from soliciting their alarm security customers, and to restrain the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the restrictive covenant, finding that the plaintiffs' rebranding and refusal to provide customer lists made compliance impractical.

However, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from passing themselves off as the plaintiffs or as authorized by them, citing clear evidence of dishonest sales tactics.

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.

Staff of the Commission brought a motion to compel the respondents to deliver Witness Summaries of their own anticipated evidence prior to the hearing on the merits.

The respondents argued that they had not yet decided whether to testify and that requiring them to provide summaries before making that decision would violate procedural fairness.

The Commission held that Rule 27(3) of the OSC Rules requires a respondent to deliver a Witness Summary of their own anticipated evidence before the hearing, even if they have not yet decided whether to testify.

The Commission found that this requirement does not violate the duty of fairness and ordered that the respondents may not testify without permission unless they deliver their Witness Summaries by the specified date.

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.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondents entered into a settlement agreement regarding allegations of market manipulation.

During the material time, the respondents engaged in approximately 60 incidents of "spoofing" on the Montreal Exchange, using non-bona fide direct electronic access orders to manipulate the National Best Bid or Offer and trade at artificial prices, profiting by approximately $250,000.

The respondents admitted to breaching s. 126.1(1)(a) of the Securities Act.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding the agreed sanctions, which included administrative penalties totaling $970,000, trading bans, and costs of $30,000, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

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 appellants, plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, obtained an ex parte subpoena in the United States under 28 U.S.C. 1782 against a non-party, Bloomberg.

The respondents successfully moved before the case management judge for an order requiring the appellants to obtain authorization under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure before taking any steps to enforce the subpoena.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly held that the appellants could not use the U.S. process to circumvent Ontario's strict rules on pre-certification discovery of non-parties, and that the appellants had failed to make full and fair disclosure to the U.S. court.