Cheryl M. Woodin

In this putative securities class action arising from alleged misconduct by the former CEO of Endeavour Mining, the plaintiffs moved for an order requiring defendants to deliver statements of defence and produce insurance information by November 21, 2025.

The defendants opposed both requests, arguing that no statement of defence is required before leave to proceed is granted under the Securities Act, and that insurance information disclosure is premature.

The court dismissed both aspects of the motion, finding that prior to OSA leave being granted, the statutory claim is a nullity and therefore no defence is required, and that insurance disclosure is premature absent settlement discussions or leave being granted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Shantanu Shirodkar’s appeal seeking to certify a class action against Coinbase Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries for alleged violations of securities laws.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction over the non-Canadian Coinbase entities and that Ireland was the preferable forum for the claims, staying the action against Coinbase Canada as well.

The decision addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses, the application of the “real and substantial connection” test, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the context of cross-border crypto-asset trading.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Volkswagen and Audi entities regarding diesel vehicles fitted with a defeat device to subvert emissions testing.

The Divisional Court had previously remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court to rehear the balance of the certification motion, apart from the questions of harm and methodology for measuring damages.

The court certified the class action, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for misrepresentation, breach of the Competition Act, breach of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and breach of certain provincial consumer protection statutes.

Claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment were struck.

The court certified several common issues but declined to certify issues requiring proof of individual reliance or disgorgement.

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This case involved a contractual dispute over a settlement agreement between pharmaceutical companies GSK and Pharmascience.

GSK claimed a stipulated payment from Pharmascience, alleging that a third-party generic manufacturer (Teva) had triggered a payment clause by entering the Canadian market.

The central issue was the interpretation of the term 'sale of its valacyclovir product in the Canadian market' within an exception clause, specifically whether it referred to ex-factory sales or downstream sales.

The court found that the term objectively meant ex-factory sales, considering the commercial context, the parties' control over sales, and the agreement's overall purpose.

Since Teva's ex-factory sales ceased within the 60-day period stipulated in the exception, the exception applied, and no payment was owed by Pharmascience.

The court dismissed GSK's action.

The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Coinbase Europe Limited, and Coinbase Canada Inc., brought a motion to dismiss a putative class action for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, to permanently stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Ontario securities legislation by distributing crypto assets without complying with prospectus requirements.

The court found presence-based jurisdiction only over Coinbase Canada Inc. due to its business activities in Ontario.

However, the court found no presence-based, consent-based, or assumed jurisdiction over Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., or Coinbase Global.

Consequently, the action against Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., and Coinbase Global was dismissed.

The court then considered forum non conveniens for Coinbase Canada Inc., concluding that Ireland was a clearly more appropriate forum given that the plaintiff's claims arose from transactions with Coinbase Europe, which was domiciled in Ireland, and the lack of a class action framework in Ireland was not a decisive juridical disadvantage.

The action against Coinbase Canada Inc. was permanently stayed.

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.

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of small to medium-sized businesses, sought coverage under their business interruption insurance policies for losses sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and related civil authority orders.

The court held a common issues trial to determine whether the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or government lockdown orders could cause 'physical loss or damage to property' within the meaning of the policies.

The court concluded that the virus does not physically alter or damage inanimate surfaces, and that the loss of use of the premises due to government orders does not constitute physical loss or damage.

Consequently, the court answered the certified common issues in the negative, finding no coverage under the business interruption provisions.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles who sold their vehicles prior to the disclosure of the emissions defeat device.

The motion judge had found no plausible methodology to calculate damages on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by requiring a tangible demonstration of the proposed methodology rather than merely assessing whether it met the low 'some basis in fact' threshold of plausibility.

The matter was remitted to a new judge to rehear the balance of the certification issues.

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 plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

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.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of pre-disclosure owners and lessees of Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles containing 'defeat devices'.

The plaintiff alleged they paid a premium for a 'clean diesel' feature they did not receive.

The court dismissed the motion for certification, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of a compensable loss or a plausible methodology to measure the alleged loss on a class-wide basis, as required under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $354,759.57 following a certification motion in a class action regarding allegedly defective water pumps in Ford vehicles.

The defendants argued that each party should bear their own costs due to the plaintiffs' limited success, as only one of fifteen causes of action was certified and the class size was significantly reduced.

The defendants also sought costs for their successful preliminary motion to strike evidence.

The court awarded the defendants $16,612.70 for the preliminary motion.

For the certification motion, the court found that a reduction in the plaintiffs' costs was justified to discourage overinclusive class membership, awarding the plaintiffs $197,750 in fees payable forthwith and $97,537.56 in disbursements payable in the cause.

The defendants in two related class actions brought a motion seeking production of Class Counsel's detailed time and fee records (Fee Details) in advance of a scheduled fee approval motion.

Class Counsel sought a multiplier of approximately three on its docketed time, totaling nearly $5 million in fees.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Fee Details were necessary for the defendants and the court to assess whether the requested fees were fair and reasonable, particularly given Class Counsel's assertions that there was no duplication of work among the national consortium of law firms.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a $1.1 billion class action against Ford Motor Co. alleging that certain vehicles contained a defective internal water pump that could cause catastrophic engine failure.

The court analyzed the claims under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Maple Leaf Foods, the court struck the claims for pure economic loss for class members whose water pumps had not yet failed, finding no imminent danger.

The court also refused to certify the breach of contract, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims.

The court certified the action solely for design negligence for class members who actually experienced a water pump failure resulting in property damage or personal injury.

In a proposed class action regarding allegedly defective water pumps in Ford vehicles, the defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the plaintiffs' proposed class counsel.

The affidavit attached unverified online complaints from a U.S. database.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the complaints were inadmissible hearsay and that their prejudicial effect outweighed any minimal probative value they might have had for imputing knowledge of the defect to the defendants.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $4.95 million settlement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium in a class action alleging the defendants misrepresented vehicle fuel economy ratings.

The court initially rejected the settlement approval based on a take-up analysis, but approved it after class counsel provided a revised analysis showing the settlement amount was fair relative to the maximum recoverable at trial.

The court also approved a modified honorarium of $3,000 for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 33 percent contingency fee.