Dana M. Peebles

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against Intuit Canada ULC and Intuit Inc., alleging that the defendants engaged in misleading advertising and 'drip pricing' by promoting their tax filing software as 'free' or 'free for simple tax returns', only to require users to pay to complete their filings after investing time in the software.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action under provincial consumer protection legislation, the Competition Act, and unjust enrichment.

The court approved the class definition, certified common issues relating to liability and aggregate damages (excluding punitive damages), and found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act against KPMG and for certification as a class proceeding for settlement purposes.

The court found the statutory criteria satisfied and granted the order, approving the class definition, representative plaintiff, common issue, and the form and dissemination of the notices to class members regarding the settlement hearing and opt-out process.

The plaintiff brought a motion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for approval of a settlement agreement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged the employer failed to properly administer paperwork for statutory leaves, resulting in lower pension service for affected employees.

The court approved the $826,836 settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the risks of litigation including limitation defences and class fracturing.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fees of $301,575.80.

However, the court denied the request for a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, finding no exceptional circumstances or financial hardship to justify the payment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to proceed under s. 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act, certification of a class action under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and default judgment against a defendant CEO of a cannabis company who failed to plead or appear despite extensive service efforts.

The defendant had been the subject of Mareva injunctions for moving assets internationally.

The court found the certification criteria were satisfied, granted leave under the OSA, and entered default judgment in the amount of $53,616,189 based on uncontroverted expert evidence of class-wide primary and secondary market damages arising from misrepresentations in public filings about the company's cannabis production facility.

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.

Four organizations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the certification of a class action against the Province of Ontario and 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeal engages the continued application of the Ragoonanan principle, which requires a representative plaintiff to have a cause of action against each defendant.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to the Class Action Clinic and Women of Class, and granted leave on limited issues to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, finding their perspectives would be useful to the court.

The defendants in a proposed class action regarding allegedly deceptive advertising of tax software brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the statement of claim and portions of the certification record.

The impugned materials referenced regulatory and civil litigation settlements in the United States concerning similar advertising by the parent company.

The court granted the motion, finding that the U.S. settlement was not sufficiently relevant to the Canadian claims and that admitting the foreign litigation evidence would needlessly expand the certification inquiry.

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.

Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.

The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.

The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.

However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.

In this putative securities class action arising from alleged misconduct by the former CEO of Endeavour Mining, the plaintiffs moved for an order requiring defendants to deliver statements of defence and produce insurance information by November 21, 2025.

The defendants opposed both requests, arguing that no statement of defence is required before leave to proceed is granted under the Securities Act, and that insurance information disclosure is premature.

The court dismissed both aspects of the motion, finding that prior to OSA leave being granted, the statutory claim is a nullity and therefore no defence is required, and that insurance disclosure is premature absent settlement discussions or leave being granted.

The court approved a $30 million settlement in a class action brought by shareholders of Aphria Inc. against the company and two of its officers, alleging misrepresentations in public disclosures about major business acquisitions.

The settlement was reached on the eve of trial after extensive discovery and negotiation, with the court finding the terms fair and reasonable given the risks of trial and potential insolvency proceedings.

The court also approved class counsel fees, disbursements, a levy to the Class Proceedings Fund, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court approved a Notice Plan for a proposed settlement in a certified class action between Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc. and Aphria Inc. et al.

The Notice Plan, developed by class counsel and to be administered by RicePoint Administration Inc., was found to be fair, reasonable, and effective in providing adequate notice to class members regarding the settlement approval hearing and related matters.

The court confirmed that the plan met the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and ordered that the Notice Plan proceed as proposed.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement arising from a 2020 ransomware attack on Blackbaud, a cloud software provider, which resulted in the exfiltration of personal data of its customers' constituents.

Despite the data breach, no evidence of actual harm or misuse of the exfiltrated data emerged over four years.

The plaintiff sought certification for settlement purposes and approval of a cy-près settlement of $340,000, to be distributed to two academic institutions focused on internet policy and data security.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success in litigation due to the absence of provable damages and the unlikelihood of establishing claims in negligence or intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also approved an unusual notice plan, dispensing with pre-approval notice to the class due to the impracticality of identifying and notifying class members and the low value of the opt-out right.

However, the court significantly reduced class counsel's requested fees from 33.3% to approximately 17.5% of the settlement amount, citing the case's lack of objective success and to discourage the "churning of bad cases."

The appellant, William Daniel Lewis, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a class action against Uber entities.

The core issue was whether the action, seeking a rebate of GST remitted to the government, was prohibited by the Excise Tax Act (ETA).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that section 312 of the ETA prohibits such actions, as the ETA provides a complete statutory framework for GST rebates, with exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Tax Court.

The court also agreed that section 224.1 of the ETA reinforces this statutory bar, extending protection from civil liability to tax collectors acting in compliance with the ETA.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a putative class action sought leave to discontinue the action under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with the defendants' consent.

The action alleged Bell Canada miscalculated a 1998 cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase for pensioners.

This issue was resolved through an "Action Plan" negotiated between Bell and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), resulting in approximately $84.2 million in retroactive payments to affected pensioners.

The court found the action moot and granted leave to discontinue, approving the proposed notice plan, as the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members.

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's fees related to pension indexing benefits for members of the Brewer’s Retail, Inc. Pension Plan.

The dispute revolved around whether indexing constituted a protected pension benefit under the Pension Benefits Act.

The settlement provides for a 0.9% annual adjustment to pension benefits for pre-2010 service, with a specific fund allocated for certain class members requiring a claims process.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the result of arm's-length negotiations and avoided the "all or nothing" risk of litigation.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved as fair and reasonable, representing a significant reduction from their dockets and a modest percentage of the total settlement value.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought approval of a third party litigation funding agreement to cover disbursements and potential adverse costs.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed agreement was champertous and not fair or reasonable to the class members, as it provided the funder with a disproportionately large share of potential recovery proceeds compared to previously approved agreements and the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund benchmark.

This case concerns the dismissal of an individual action against LifeLabs Inc. following a criminal cyber-attack that exposed customer data.

The plaintiff, Asif Rahman, had commenced an individual action, which was held in abeyance while a class action, Carter v. LifeLabs Inc., proceeded.

The class action was certified for settlement purposes, and the settlement was subsequently approved, binding all class members who did not opt out, including the plaintiff.

LifeLabs sought to dismiss the individual action.

The court, by consent, ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff's action without costs, noting that while the plaintiff's delay in consenting to dismissal caused some unnecessary expense, the circumstances did not warrant a costs award against him.

The plaintiffs successfully defended a motion by the defendant to amend the certified class definition.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $88,296.33.

The defendant argued the amount was too high and suggested $45,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs request slightly excessive due to unwarranted allegations of abuse of process, which unnecessarily protracted the matter.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 20% and awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of a Special Committee report, three due diligence legal opinions, and answers to questions about missing marijuana inventory.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Special Committee report and the legal opinions were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the privilege had not been waived.

The court also held that the questions regarding the missing marijuana were irrelevant and disproportionate.