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 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' 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.

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 appellants, general partners in three limited partnerships, appealed an application judge's order requiring them to produce information to the respondent limited partners and to include specific material in annual and semi-annual reports.

The appellants argued procedural unfairness and that the order exceeded the limited partnership agreements (LPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness as the appellants had ample notice, and that the order was consistent with the broad information rights of limited partners under section 10 of the Limited Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

L.16, and did not prejudice the appellants.

The moving parties sought to quash an appeal of an application judge's order that had granted their application under the Limited Partnerships Act to compel the responding parties to provide financial information.

The moving parties argued the order was interlocutory and therefore not appealable.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge's order was final, as it brought the application to an end and finally determined the moving parties' entitlement to financial information.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a class action certification decision concerning alleged price-fixing of colour display tubes.

The motion for leave to appeal raised three main issues: whether an unlawful means conspiracy claim could be based on the Competition Act, whether "umbrella purchasers" had a viable cause of action, and whether the methodology for establishing class-wide harm met the "credible and plausible" standard.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of umbrella purchasers due to conflicting jurisprudence and concerns about indeterminate liability, but denied leave on the other two issues, finding the certification judge applied the correct test for common issues and that the Competition Act is not a complete code precluding common law claims.

The respondent purchased the appellant's business in exchange for securities, with the appellant becoming a minority shareholder.

The acquisition agreement contained a representation and warranty regarding tax pools.

Years later, the Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the respondent's use of the tax pools and assessed approximately $11.8 million in additional taxes, interest, and penalties.

The respondent invoked an indemnity from the appellant, who argued the respondent had breached the tax pools representation and warranty.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the respondent, interpreting the representation and warranty as directed solely to the accurate identification of tax pools and their values at closing, not as a guarantee of future tax utilization.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking indemnification from the defendants for a percentage of taxes, interest, and penalties assessed by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

The parties had previously entered into a Share Put Agreement containing an indemnity clause.

The defendants argued they were protected by a prior representation and warranty regarding the future use of tax pools, and sought a set-off.

The court found that the plaintiff did not guarantee the future use of the tax pools against CRA reassessment, and that any such prior representations were superseded by an entire agreement clause.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, enforcing the indemnity, and declined to stay execution of the judgment pending the CRA appeal.

The representative plaintiff in a proposed national class action alleged that multiple manufacturers conspired to fix prices of polyurethane foam and carpet underlay products.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking court approval of several negotiated settlement agreements with numerous defendants totaling approximately $29.28 million for the benefit of the class, along with cooperation provisions to assist claims against remaining defendants.

An objector argued that the settlements should not be approved until a distribution protocol and damages analysis were finalized.

The court held that settlement approval can properly occur before approval of a distribution protocol and that the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the complexity, litigation risk, and absence of meaningful objections.

The settlements were therefore approved.

Following the plaintiff’s successful opposition to a motion for particulars in complex competition litigation, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $70,000 out of approximately $106,569 incurred, while the defendants proposed $42,055.

The court accepted that the litigation and motion were complex, involved extensive documentation, cross-examinations, and several days of argument, and that the plaintiff’s counsel’s rates and time were reasonable.

However, reductions were warranted because a cross-motion to strike affidavits was unnecessary and withdrawn, and certain document review costs related to the broader action rather than the motion itself.

The court fixed reasonable partial indemnity costs at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the Commissioner of Competition to provide further particulars of alleged misleading representations pleaded under paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Competition Act concerning premium text messaging services.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim failed to identify the specific alleged misrepresentations and related details necessary to prepare their defences.

The court held that the pleading sufficiently described the alleged deceptive marketing practices and that the requested particulars largely sought evidentiary details, which are properly obtained through discovery rather than particulars.

Given that the alleged representations could number in the hundreds or more and concerned matters within the defendants’ knowledge, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the request for further particulars.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a price‑fixing class action for settlement purposes against certain chocolate manufacturers and approval of a settlement with one defendant.

The action alleged a conspiracy to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of chocolate confectionery products in Canada, contrary to competition law.

The court considered the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and approved certification for settlement purposes, noting that common issues and preferable procedure criteria were satisfied.

The court further approved a $5.3 million settlement with the settling defendant, including cooperation provisions and a most‑favoured‑nation clause, finding the compromise fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

An interim class counsel fee award of $800,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax was approved, subject to possible adjustment depending on future settlements.

In a certified class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices contrary to Part IV of the Competition Act and related torts, the representative plaintiffs sought court approval of a negotiated settlement with one defendant.

The settlement required the settling defendant to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec and to provide extensive cooperation in the ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The agreement also included a bar order preventing contribution and indemnity claims against the settling defendant while permitting discovery cooperation and proportional liability determinations at trial.

Applying established class action settlement approval principles, the court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The settlement approval order was granted.