Craig P. Dennis

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action against Yahoo!

Inc. and Yahoo!

Canada Co. for privacy breaches brought a consent motion for a pre-certification representation order.

The order sought to appoint Charney Lawyers PC as representative counsel to negotiate a holdback agreement with Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo) during its dissolution in Delaware.

This agreement would secure potential creditor claims for the approximately 5 million putative class members in Canada.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary and desirable under Rule 10.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to protect the interests of the unascertained class members and ensure the fair and expeditious determination of the class proceeding, drawing parallels to representation orders in CCAA proceedings.

The appellant used funds advanced by the respondent to purchase property in his own name.

The respondent claimed a beneficial interest via purchase money resulting trust.

The Supreme Court declined to abandon the purchase money resulting trust doctrine in favour of unjust enrichment, holding that the doctrine provides certainty and predictability.

The Court found the trial judge correctly concluded the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, as the respondent's contribution matched the exact amount of tax arrears it owed to a third party, and the respondent's own fax stated the funds were advanced without conditions or requirements.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.