Christopher P. Naudie

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The representative plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy for packaged bread sought to amend their pleadings and the Certification Order to add Maple Leaf Foods Inc. as a certified defendant.

The original Certification Order had refused certification against Maple Leaf on the basis that the pleadings disclosed no cause of action against it, and this decision was not appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the motion, finding that the original refusal to certify was a final order that gave rise to res judicata.

The court held that the Class Proceedings Act does not permit relitigation of matters finally decided, and the motion judge did not err in refusing to exercise his limited discretion to bypass res judicata.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to reconsider a previous certification ruling that dismissed the action against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (MLF) in a class action alleging price-fixing.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify the action against MLF, presenting new evidence including a Second Information to Obtain (ITO), MLF's annual reports, Canada Bread's Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) from a criminal proceeding, and emails from Canada Bread's files.

MLF opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to exclude the new evidence and strike the Plaintiffs' amended claims.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the 'new evidence' was either not new, inadmissible hearsay, or did not substantively alter the lack of a viable cause of action against MLF.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation, stating that a certification dismissal for lack of cause of action is a final order and cannot be revisited without meeting a strict test for new evidence (Sagaz test), which was not met here.

The court also granted MLF's motion to exclude the evidence and strike the amended statements of claim against MLF.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that granted declaratory relief to the respondents and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for fees.

The appeal focused on whether management agreements were unauthorized and if the respondents were estopped from arguing their invalidity.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the agreements or her finding on estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses a contempt motion brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for non-compliance with a prior trial decision, and a cross-motion by the defendants to stay the contempt motion due to alleged Charter breaches by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for several failures to comply with the original order, including withholding records and refusing to execute necessary assignments.

However, the court also found that the plaintiffs committed Charter breaches (failure of timely disclosure and case splitting) in their prosecution of the contempt motion, which curtailed the evidence that could be relied upon.

The stay motion was dismissed, but the scope of contempt findings was limited due to the excluded evidence.

The court ordered the defendants to comply with outstanding obligations within 30 days.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an eight-day trial where the plaintiffs were entirely successful in their claims and in dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants' conduct, including unsubstantiated fraud allegations and disclosure failures, warranted an elevated scale.

The defendants opposed the quantum and scale, and the plaintiffs also sought costs against the defendants' principal, Mr. Tajbakhsh, and an unidentified third-party funder.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $1 million in substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' conduct, while not amounting to fraud on the court, justified the elevated scale.

However, the court declined to award costs against Mr. Tajbakhsh personally or the third-party funder, as the high threshold for non-party costs (abuse of process or fraud) was not met.

The court also explicitly prohibited the defendants from using Limited Partnership funds to satisfy the costs award.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a national class proceeding against major online accommodation booking platforms for alleged systemic misleading advertising practices.

The appellants sought nominal damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement under consumer protection legislation, explicitly disclaiming compensatory damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was plain and obvious these remedies were unavailable under the Consumer Protection Act without proof of individual compensatory harm.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The plaintiffs, limited partners in three real estate development limited partnerships, sought declarations validating their special resolutions to remove and replace the original general partners.

The dispute arose after the original general partners issued capital calls to pay management fees to an affiliated company, which the plaintiffs argued were unauthorized.

The court found the capital calls were invalid as the management agreements were not approved by special resolution and the general partners failed to seek external financing first.

The court upheld the plaintiffs' special resolutions removing the original general partners due to multiple unremedied defaults, including failure to provide access to financial records, co-mingling of funds, and unauthorized related-party transactions.

The defendants' counterclaims were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certification motion for a proposed class action against a car rental company.

The proposed class consisted of branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as managers and improperly denied overtime pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the claims lacked sufficient commonality due to the substantial variability in the job functions and duties actually performed by the proposed class members across different branch locations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's refusal to certify aggregate damages and the finding that British Columbia class members had no cause of action.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory injunctive relief and a certificate of pending litigation was dismissed.

The defendants and non-party Project Companies sought costs.

The plaintiffs opposed an award of costs or argued for a reduced amount, but failed to provide their own costs outline.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments to deny costs or defer them to the trial judge.

Applying the principle that an attack on costs without providing one's own dockets is an 'attack in the air,' the court found the claimed amounts reasonable and awarded partial indemnity costs of $65,000 to the defendants and $39,000 to the Project Companies.

On a certification motion in a proposed national class action concerning online travel and accommodation booking websites, the moving parties alleged misleading search result, discount, and urgency practices under the Competition Act, consumer protection statutes across Canada, and unjust enrichment.

The court held the pleaded statutory and restitutionary claims were legally deficient, including because the remedies pursued were unavailable, reliance and compensatory loss were not properly established where required, and several provincial and territorial claims were not properly pleaded.

The court also held there was no some basis in fact that two or more class members suffered compensable harm, as the alleged injury was disappointment from not choosing psychologically or economically preferable accommodation.

Aggregate damages and punitive damages were not certifiable common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The plaintiffs, limited partners and their newly appointed general partners, moved for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the former general partners and non-party project companies from dealing with real estate development properties pending a governance trial.

They also sought leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation and to amend their statement of claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an interlocutory injunction could not be granted against the non-party project companies because the plaintiffs had not claimed a permanent injunction against them, nor had they provided an undertaking in damages.

The request for a certificate of pending litigation was also denied as the plaintiffs, being shareholders of the project companies, did not have a triable issue for a direct interest in the properties.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a car rental company, alleging systemic misclassification of branch managers and seeking unpaid overtime.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues regarding misclassification could not be resolved on a class-wide basis due to significant variability in the actual job functions performed by managers across different branch locations.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's proposed methodologies for calculating aggregate damages, which relied on computer log-in data and anonymous crowdsourced internet reviews.

The court dismissed two motions seeking to consolidate other proceedings with a main action scheduled for trial.

The first motion, brought by the defendants, sought to consolidate the main action with a separate claim against former employees for breach of fiduciary duty (the "Brampton action").

The second motion, brought by 320 Bronte Road Inc., sought to consolidate its newly commenced action (alleging misconduct by the plaintiffs) and the Brampton action with the main proceeding.

The court found that the issues in the various proceedings were distinct, and consolidation would cause significant delays to the fixed trial date.

It concluded that any theoretical benefits of judicial economy or avoiding inconsistent findings were outweighed by the practical concerns of delay and managing unwieldy, disparate claims.

The court also criticized 320 Bronte Road Inc. for failing to follow proper Commercial List scheduling protocols.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The plaintiffs in a proposed consumer protection and competition law class action sought court approval of a third-party funding agreement with Harbour Fund IV.

The plaintiffs, who are of modest means, required the funding to prosecute the action against several large travel booking companies.

The court applied the four-factor test for third-party funding and found the agreement was not champertous, was necessary for access to justice, and adequately protected the defendants' interests.

The motion was granted and the funding agreement was approved.

The parties agreed upon a timetable leading up to a certification motion in a class proceeding.

The court endorsed the agreed-upon schedule, setting dates for the exchange of motion records, cross-examinations, and factums, with the motion returnable for three days in May and June 2022.