Danielle K. Royal

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order bifurcating common issues relating to the quantification and apportionment of any accounting or disgorgement for a claim based on waiver of tort from the other common issues in a class action concerning allegedly defective cardiac defibrillators.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions on the issue of bifurcation and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, noting the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its claim for a commission and unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found there was no agreement to pay the appellant in the absence of a completed transaction, and the appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider a settlement agreement between Staff and Research In Motion Limited (RIM) and several of its directors and officers regarding the improper backdating and repricing of stock options over a ten-year period.

The misconduct resulted in an undisclosed benefit of approximately $66 million and misleading public disclosure.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest.

The settlement included substantial financial contributions to RIM, administrative penalties totaling $8 million, costs of $1.05 million, reprimands, and various prohibitions and educational requirements for the individual respondents.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action against them.

The Divisional Court denied leave, emphasizing the deference owed to case-management judges in certification motions.

The court found no conflicting decisions or errors in the certification judge's treatment of waiver of tort, conspiracy pleadings, or special damages.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting the respondent's motion to stay proceedings in Ontario.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding Ontario had no jurisdiction based on presence or a real and substantial connection.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's application of the Muscutt factors, finding no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings or legal conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order staying its Ontario proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to apply the 'clearly establish' test from Amchem and improperly allowed the avoidance of multiple proceedings to trump other Muscutt factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the heavy burden test and comprehensively weighed all relevant factors in determining that New York was the more appropriate forum.

The court-appointed receiver of a corporation recommended that the company enter a plea agreement and plead guilty to a charge of mail fraud in the United States.

The motion judge approved the recommendation as being within the bounds of reasonableness.

The appellants appealed, arguing the receiver failed to properly assess the risk of conviction and the benefits of the plea agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the receiver's assessment of the risk of conviction, cost savings, and reduced exposure to civil liability and restitution was reasonable.

The moving party, the first wife of the respondent husband, sought leave to intervene in an appeal regarding a vesting order made in favour of the husband's second wife.

The trial judge had ordered the husband's beneficial interest in certain corporate properties vested in the second wife to satisfy substantial support arrears.

The moving party, who also held foreign judgments for support arrears against the husband, sought to intervene to protect her interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the intervention was instigated by the husband to frustrate the second wife's recovery, and that allowing it at this late stage would unduly delay and prejudice the second wife's rights.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering them to pay the respondent for the redemption of preference shares.

The appellants argued that an oral collateral agreement delayed the payment obligations until the completion of a separate share sale, and that the respondent's interference in that sale justified equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the alleged collateral agreement contradicted the clear terms of the written redemption agreement and guarantee, which included an entire agreement clause.

The court also found that equitable set-off was expressly precluded by the guarantee and that the motions judge did not exceed her jurisdiction in granting summary judgment.