Christopher P. Naudie

Commercial List application concerning removal of a limited partnership's general partner for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and breaches of the limited partnership agreement.

The court found the general partner entered into related party agreements without limited partner approval, co-mingled partnership funds, and used partnership assets for personal expenses and its own legal fees.

The court upheld special resolutions removing the general partner and appointing a replacement, emphasizing the fiduciary character of the general partner's role and the limited partners' loss of trust and confidence.

A cross-application for relief from forfeiture was dismissed, and ancillary declaratory and accounting relief was granted.

This motion concerned the winding-up of Maple Bank GmbH.

The Liquidator sought approval for a Fourth Interim Distribution, a reduction in the reserve held, and approval of the Fourteenth Report of the Liquidator and its activities.

Additionally, the Liquidator sought approval for a Data Custodian Order.

There was no opposition to the requested relief, with Canada Revenue Agency's pending claim being addressed by a maintained reserve.

The court granted the motion, approving the distribution, the reduction in reserve, the Liquidator's report and activities, and the Data Custodian Order.

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 Applicants sought a hearing and review of a decision by the Director of the Ontario Securities Commission refusing to issue a receipt for The Bitcoin Fund's prospectus.

The Director had refused the receipt on the grounds that bitcoin is an illiquid asset under NI 81-102 and that issuing the receipt was not in the public interest due to concerns about valuation, safeguarding of assets, and auditability.

The Commission set aside the Director's decision, finding that Staff failed to prove bitcoin is an illiquid asset given the evidence of substantial trading volumes on regulated exchanges.

The Commission also found that the Applicants had taken reasonable steps to mitigate operational risks through the fund's static buy-and-hold structure, the use of a regulated index for valuation, and the engagement of professional custodians and auditors.

The Director was ordered to issue a receipt for the prospectus.

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 plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of cathode ray tubes (CDTs) and colour picture tubes (CPTs).

The plaintiff asserted causes of action under the Competition Act and for common law unlawful means conspiracy, including claims on behalf of umbrella purchasers.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The motion for certification was granted.

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.

In a proposed national class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for DRAM semiconductor devices, the representative plaintiffs sought approval of four additional settlement agreements with certain defendants and approval of class counsel fees.

The court assessed whether the negotiated settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Although no finalized distribution protocol for settlement funds had yet been developed, the court concluded the settlements—totaling $23.325 million and including cooperation provisions—were reasonable given litigation risk and the benefit of cooperation against non‑settling defendants.

The court also scrutinized class counsel’s request for a 30% contingency fee of approximately $7.13 million.

Finding that percentage excessive at this stage of the proceedings, the court reduced the fee award to 20% of total settlements achieved to date and approved an interim fee of $4,180,345.59.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify two actions as class proceedings for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 in relation to alleged price-fixing of DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices.

The actions alleged breach of Part IV of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with economic interests against numerous international semiconductor manufacturers.

Following earlier settlement with one defendant, additional settlements were reached with several defendants totaling substantial monetary payments and cooperation commitments.

The court held that the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and approved certification for settlement purposes.

The court further determined that no additional opt‑out period was required because class members had already been provided a valid opportunity to opt out during the earlier settlement process.

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.

In a proposed class action alleging a conspiracy among DRAM manufacturers to fix prices, the plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action for settlement purposes against one defendant following a settlement agreement.

The settlement required the defendant to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and determined that the criteria for certification were satisfied.

The court also approved the proposed notice and notice plan, which aligned with a similar approval in British Columbia.

The motion was unopposed and the orders were granted as requested.

The defendants in an oppression action brought a motion to vary an order of a Superior Court judge who had dismissed their motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The moving party relied on s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the motion for want of jurisdiction, holding that s. 21(5) only permits a panel to vary a decision of a judge who has heard a motion in the Divisional Court, not a Superior Court judge acting in a gatekeeper capacity for leave to appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a bar order in a class proceeding.

They argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction under ss. 12 and 13 of the Class Proceedings Act to make the order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the bar order appropriately limited the plaintiff's claim against non-settling defendants to their proportionate liability, in accordance with established principles.