Dana M. Peebles

This appeal concerned the proper calculation of cost-of-living adjustments under a pension plan, specifically the rounding policy for the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The motion judge had found the respondents were entitled to round the CPI increase to two decimal points (1.49%), resulting in a 1% pension increase.

The appellant argued the plan required adherence to Statistics Canada's one-decimal policy (1.5%), which would result in a 2% pension increase.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact by ignoring uncontradicted evidence that the two-decimal rounding provision in the plan would still have meaning even with the Statistics Canada one-decimal policy for the Pension Index, particularly for recently retired pensioners.

The court held that the plan's language required adopting Statistics Canada's one-decimal policy for both the annual percentage increase and the CPI.

The appeal was allowed, and summary judgment was granted in favour of the appellant, leading to a 2% pension increase for 2017.

The respondent retailers brought a motion to strike an application by an animal rights organization and its founder, who sought a declaration that the use of glue traps by members of the public violates the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code and the OSPCA Act.

The court found that the applicants did not meet the threshold for public interest standing, as a declaratory application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issue to court when other avenues, such as private prosecutions or complaints to enforcement bodies, had not been pursued.

The motion to strike was granted in part.

This is a costs endorsement addressing the allocation of costs for certification and summary judgment motions in the Superior Court and the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The plaintiffs appealed from orders of Justice Paul M. Perell denying certification and granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiffs achieved partial success: they obtained certification on some common issues but not on their negligent misrepresentation claim, and they reversed summary judgment on some claims while others remained time-barred.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the plaintiffs reflecting their overall success.

This appeal concerns a proposed $2.5 billion class action involving more than 230,000 universal life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company between 1985 and 1998.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation in the sale of policies and breach of contractual duties relating to premiums and fees.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion for misrepresentation claims and initially declined to certify breach of contract claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, certifying the breach of contract common issues and allowing the plaintiffs to pursue individual misrepresentation claims.

The court found the motions judge erred in principle by failing to conduct individualized and contextual analyses of the limitation period defences and by improperly deciding the merits of the breach of contract claims at the certification stage.

In a securities misrepresentation class action, the defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' reply expert report, delivered by Andrew M. Mintzer, in its entirety.

The report, initially intended to address causation, expanded to cover liability, contravening the agreed timetable and the rule against case-splitting.

The court granted the defendants' motion, striking the report but allowing the plaintiffs leave to file a new affidavit from Mr. Mintzer strictly confined to the issue of causation, as originally agreed.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to timetables and the rule against case-splitting, particularly in leave motions under the Ontario Securities Act, which serve a gatekeeper function.

This decision addresses a scheduling dispute in a proposed class action concerning the Bell Canada Pension Plan.

The defendants sought to have their motion to stay the class action, arguing that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) was the preferable forum, heard before the certification motion.

The plaintiff opposed this, requesting both motions be heard concurrently.

The court, applying the Cannon factors and principles against litigation by installments, denied the defendants' request, directing that the stay motion be heard together with the certification motion, emphasizing that the preferability of jurisdiction is an issue best determined within the certification context.

The plaintiff sought leave to bring a statutory misrepresentation class action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act against MDC Partners Inc. and its former executives.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made material misrepresentations by failing to disclose an SEC subpoena, an internal investigation into executive expenses, and other accounting issues.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that none of the alleged omissions or misstatements were material facts that would have significantly altered the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor, particularly given that the company's auditors never withdrew their clean audit opinions or required a restatement of financial statements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve the settlement of a securities misrepresentation class action against Canada Lithium Corp. and its directors and officers.

The corporate defendant had become insolvent and the only remaining asset was a wasting directors and officers insurance policy.

The parties agreed to settle the action for $400,000, which would be paid entirely to class counsel for fees and disbursements, with no distribution to class members.

The court approved the settlement and the fee request, finding that further litigation would only deplete the insurance policy and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class under the circumstances.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees following a data breach at Home Depot.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success for class members.

However, the court denied honoraria for representative plaintiffs and significantly reduced the requested class counsel fees from $406,800 to $120,000, emphasizing that fees must be proportionate to the actual benefit received by the class members, which was valued at approximately $400,000.

The defendants moved to temporarily stay two related securities misrepresentation actions: an individual action (Vaeth Action) and a proposed class action (Johnson Class Action).

The court granted the temporary stay, finding irreconcilable conflicts of interest for the shared counsel (Morganti Legal) representing both the individual plaintiffs (who intended to opt-out of the class action) and the representative plaintiff of the class action.

The court also found independent reasons to stay the individual action to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial economy, pending the certification and leave motions in the class action.

The Court addressed three securities class action appeals on whether limitation periods for statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claims are suspended before leave is granted, and on related nunc pro tunc, special circumstances, leave-threshold, and certification issues.

The CIBC and IMAX appeals were dismissed, while the Celestica appeal was allowed.

The moving defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a certification order in a class proceeding alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The motion argued that the pleadings were deficient, that the motions judge failed to review evidence supporting the proposed common issues, and that the plaintiff’s economist lacked the required expertise.

The court held that certification judges are entitled to deference and that the certification stage requires only some basis in fact that certification criteria are met, not proof of the underlying conspiracy.

Reading the certification reasons contextually, the court concluded that the motions judge had considered the applicable principles and that there was no serious doubt as to the correctness of the order.

The moving defendants therefore failed to satisfy the leave test under Rule 62.02(4).

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Dow defendants for an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in the market for polyether polyol products.

The court reviewed the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on indirect purchaser claims.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed with a plausible methodology for proving class-wide loss, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the plaintiff was a suitable representative.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a case management judge's order that amended the definition of an Ontario global class by removing members who participated in a court-approved settlement of parallel U.S. proceedings.

The plaintiffs argued the judge lacked jurisdiction, was barred by issue estoppel, and erred in recognizing the U.S. settlement without evaluating its merits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no palpable or overriding errors in the motion judge's exercise of discretion or application of international comity principles.

The applicant company sought an order to terminate a supplementary retirement plan trust fund and have the remaining assets distributed to it.

The trust fund was established to ensure employees transferred from a predecessor company would not be adversely affected regarding their pension entitlements.

The trustee refused to consent to the termination, citing a lack of evidence that the participants had received their full entitlements.

The court dismissed the company's application, finding that at least one participant had demonstrated a shortfall, and directed the trustee to obtain actuarial calculations for other participants before any remaining balance could be returned to the company.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class proceeding sought court approval of a settlement and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 following a cyber‑attack on the defendants’ PlayStation Network and related online services that allegedly compromised personal information and interrupted access.

The settlement provided cash payments for unused account balances, online service benefits, and reimbursement of up to $2,500 for proven identity theft losses.

Notice of certification and settlement was distributed to millions of account holders and resulted in minimal opt-outs and no objections.

The court considered the applicable factors for settlement approval in class proceedings and concluded the agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The requested class counsel fee of $265,000 was also approved as reasonable in light of the risk and work undertaken.

The defendants and proposed defendants sought leave to appeal a motion judge's ruling on a Rule 21 motion, an order certifying the proceeding as a class proceeding, and an order granting the plaintiffs leave to commence an action under the Securities Act.

The court granted leave to appeal the Rule 21 motion in relation to the pleadings of negligence and negligent misrepresentation, noting that two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions created a correctness and conflict issue.

Consequently, leave to appeal the certification order was also granted.

Furthermore, the court granted the proposed defendants leave to appeal the order allowing proceedings against them under the Securities Act, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's determination that they were de facto officers of the Income Fund.