Colette Koopman

In a certified class action regarding the employment classification of Uber drivers and delivery persons, both parties brought motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery.

Uber also brought a motion under s. 15(2) of the Class Proceedings Act for leave to examine ten additional class members.

The court dismissed both refusals motions, finding the refused questions were irrelevant to the common issues, overbroad, or lacked foundation.

The court granted Uber's motion to examine the additional class members, finding their evidence regarding individual choices and interactions with the Uber app was highly relevant to the common issues, necessary, and would not cause undue burden.

The examinations were limited to a half day per class member.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion in a class action regarding the price of packaged bread after discovering potentially fraudulent claims on the settlement funds.

The Settlement Administrator identified that approximately $3.7 million in approved claims had been channeled into a small number of bank accounts.

To investigate the issue, the Settlement Administrator's banking partner required an indemnity.

The court granted an order permitting the Settlement Administrator to use any returned funds to cover claims under the indemnity, with any remaining funds to be distributed cy-près.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of an $8,000,000 settlement in three related securities class actions against a cannabis company and its directors, officers, and underwriters.

The claims alleged misrepresentations regarding the company's business and the build-out of its production facility.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of 30% of the settlement amount ($2,400,000) and honoraria of $5,000 for each of the four representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in three related proposed class actions sought leave to proceed under the Securities Act, certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes, and approval of a Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing.

The actions alleged misrepresentations by a cannabis company regarding its facility expansion.

The court found the certification criteria were met for settlement purposes, granted leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and approved the form and dissemination plan for the settlement notice.

The court approved a $500 million settlement in a national class action concerning a price-fixing conspiracy in the packaged bread market, resolving claims against Loblaw Companies Limited and related entities.

The settlement includes a substantial damages payment, a distribution protocol for class members, and a cooperation agreement by Loblaw to assist in ongoing litigation against non-settling defendants.

The court also approved class counsel fees and the payout to a third-party funder, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The decision addresses a motion by Osama Ebid and Fast to Canada for an order requiring the plaintiffs, a group of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, to post $45,000 as security for costs in a civil action regarding failed permanent residency applications.

The court reviews the legal principles for security for costs, the timing of the motion, the residence and assets of the plaintiffs, the merits of the litigation, and the interests of justice.

Despite the late timing of the motion, the court grants the order, finding the plaintiffs have no connection to Ontario and the amount sought is reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act against Akumin Inc., its directors and officers, and its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, and for certification of the action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claims arose from alleged misrepresentations in Akumin's financial statements that were later restated.

The court granted leave against the Akumin defendants, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial regarding the alleged misrepresentations and public corrections.

However, the court denied leave against the auditor, EY, finding insufficient evidence that the auditor's statements were material or publicly corrected.

The court certified the action as a global class proceeding against the Akumin defendants, rejecting arguments to exclude American purchasers from the class.

The appellants, several local governments, appealed the dismissal of their application for declarations and injunctions against Canadian National Railway Company (CN) regarding the construction of an intermodal hub.

The appellants sought to compel CN to comply with over 65 provincial and municipal laws.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the majority of the claims lacked a factual foundation and were premature, and that the three specific bylaws at issue impaired the core of the federal railway undertaking under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the construction and operation of the intermodal hub is a vital part of a federal railway undertaking and that the municipal bylaws requiring official plan amendments impaired this core federal power.

The appeal and the application for leave to appeal costs were 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.

DGAP Investments Ltd. sought a stay pending leave to appeal an order from the supervising judge in a CCAA proceeding.

The order authorized Stelco Inc. to acquire partnership units in a Land Vehicle, which DGAP argued would obstruct its prior agreement to purchase land from the Land Vehicle.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, finding that DGAP's case for leave to appeal was weak on the merits, there was no irreparable harm given the supervising judge's measures to protect DGAP's interests, and the balance of convenience favoured dismissing the stay to allow the CCAA proceeding to conclude and benefit aging stakeholders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the leave to appeal motion was expedited.

This application concerned Thomson Reuters Corporation's proposed plan of arrangement under section 182 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario).

The arrangement involved a return of capital of approximately USD $2.2 billion to shareholders and a proportional share consolidation, with an opt-out right for certain non-Canadian resident shareholders for tax purposes.

The Board of Directors approved the transaction, deeming it in the Company's best interests for efficient capital distribution.

Shareholders overwhelmingly approved the arrangement resolution at a meeting with high participation.

The court applied the three-part test for approving arrangements, confirming that statutory procedures were met, the application was in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable, largely evidenced by the strong shareholder approval and unanimous director support.

The final approval order was granted.

At a case management conference in a certified class proceeding against Uber, the court considered whether to schedule the plaintiffs' proposed motions to amend their statement of claim and certify an additional common issue regarding an arbitration and class action waiver clause.

The defendants had already brought a motion to amend the class action notices.

Pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiffs' motions to be scheduled and heard together with the defendants' motion, and set a timetable for the delivery of materials and the hearing.