Chris Horkins

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to transfer the action from Newmarket to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the holistic factors for venue transfer and found that the interest of justice required the transfer.

The transfer was granted primarily because there were common issues with a related Toronto action, and summary judgment motions for all related proceedings had already been ordered to be heard together in Toronto.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add BMO and TD as defendants.

The proposed defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed they only discovered the involvement of BMO and TD after receiving a proffer of evidence from a settling defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the claims against BMO and TD before the expiry of the limitation period.

In a proposed class action alleging price-fixing in the foreign exchange market, the plaintiffs sought to add BMO and TD as defendants.

BMO and TD argued the claims were statute-barred.

On cross-examination for the joinder motion, the plaintiffs' deponent refused to answer questions about a settlement proffer from another defendant, which the plaintiffs claimed was the source of discovering the claims against BMO and TD.

BMO and TD brought a motion to compel answers.

The court ordered the deponent to answer the questions, finding that the evidence was relevant to rebutting the presumption of discovery under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that any privilege attaching to the proffer had been waived when the plaintiffs voluntarily relied on it.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

The moving defendants sought leave to issue a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against a proposed third party said to have manufactured a component of the crane brake system involved in a motor vehicle accident, or alternatively to consolidate the action with a related contribution and indemnity action.

The court held that, notwithstanding Rule 29.02(1.2), it had no authority to permit commencement of a statute-barred third party claim, and found the claim was discoverable no later than February 23, 2012 and was not advanced within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court further held that no useful purpose would be served by consolidation because the related actions had already been ordered to be tried together and consolidation would likely add costs through consolidated pleadings.

The motion was dismissed, with costs to the proposed third party.