Daniel Szirmak

The appellants, Olympia Trust Company and William Loucks, appealed a motion judge's order discharging a second mortgage on property owned by the respondents.

The respondents had borrowed funds from First Swiss Mortgage Corp., which assigned the mortgage to Olympia as bare trustee.

When the respondents refinanced and paid out the mortgage to First Swiss, the discharge was never registered and First Swiss misappropriated the funds.

The motion judge found that First Swiss was acting as Olympia's agent in receiving the payout and discharging the mortgage based on the terms of agreements between First Swiss and Loucks and the course of dealings between the parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.

Following successful motions to strike the plaintiffs' $5 million claim as statute-barred, the defendants sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the requested amounts were disproportionate and suggested a combined award of $10,000.

The court reviewed the complexity of the historical claims, the extensive document retrieval required, and the plaintiffs' conduct which prolonged the proceedings.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded costs of $85,000 to each defendant.

The borrowers brought a motion within a receivership proceeding to discharge a mortgage on their residential property.

They had paid the mortgage in full to the mortgage broker, First Swiss, who had assigned the mortgage to Olympia Trust Company as a bare trustee for investors.

First Swiss misappropriated the funds and failed to remit them to Olympia.

The court found that First Swiss had actual and apparent authority to act as the agent for Olympia and the beneficial owner, Loucks.

The motion was granted, the mortgage was ordered discharged, and costs were awarded to the borrowers.

The defendants in several related class actions brought motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' actions were statute-barred by limitation periods or were a nullity for failing to obtain leave to commence.

The court adjourned the limitation period motions, finding they overlapped with common issues in earlier certified class actions.

The court dismissed the motions based on the leave requirement, interpreting the certification orders' leave provisions as applying only to competing class actions representing the same class members, not to actions by different classes arising from the same factual matrix.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in 2020 alleging breach of an airport lease and negligent misrepresentation regarding a lease extension promised between 1985 and 1995.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1) as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the Real Property Limitations Act applied or that the breaches were ongoing.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the claims were subject to the Limitations Act, 2002 and the former Limitations Act.

The court held it was plain and obvious that the plaintiffs discovered their claims between 1999 and 2013, well beyond the applicable limitation periods.

The action was dismissed without leave to amend.

Following the dismissal of the main class action on its merits and the exhaustion of appeals, the defendant requested an endorsement confirming that its 74 dormant third party claims were deemed dismissed.

The court converted the case conference into a motion under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Finding that an omnibus dismissal was fair, avoided unnecessary expense, and served the administration of justice, the court granted the request and ordered the third party claims dismissed.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, brought a consent motion to dismiss third-party proceedings against ADI Developments (Link) Inc., ADI Development Group Inc., and Tariq Adi.

The motion was brought after the plaintiff's main action against Olympia Trust was dismissed and a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving claims against the ADI Defendants was approved.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the third-party proceedings with prejudice and without costs, as the basis for the third-party claim was obviated and the dismissal was on consent.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action concerning failed syndicated mortgage investments brought a motion to lift a stay of proceedings and dismiss the action against the ADI Defendants.

A settlement had been reached in a related action (the FAAN Action) providing over $18.3 million to the investors, representing over 91% of the principal owed by the ADI Defendants.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, and approved the dismissal of the class action against the ADI Defendants without costs, as there was no prejudice to the putative class members.

The appellant, a representative plaintiff in a class action, appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against Olympia Trust Company.

The action alleged that Olympia Trust, as a custodial trustee for syndicated mortgage loans (SMLs) held in registered savings accounts, breached trust and fiduciary duties by failing to ensure the SMLs were "qualified investments" under the Income Tax Act.

The motion judge found it plain and obvious that the claims for breach of trust and fiduciary duty could not succeed, and that other certification criteria were not met.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the Income Tax Act provisions and the Declaration of Trust did not impose the extensive "gatekeeping" or "watchdog" duties alleged by the appellant on Olympia Trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a trust company that acted as the trustee for registered savings accounts through which class members invested in syndicated mortgages.

The syndicated mortgages, promoted by a third-party developer, failed, resulting in significant losses.

The plaintiff alleged the trust company breached trust, fiduciary, contractual, and common law duties by failing to ensure the mortgages were fully secured and qualified investments under the Income Tax Act.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as the trust company did not undertake the alleged gatekeeper duties.

The court also found the proposed omnibus class action failed the common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria.

The defendant in a proposed class action brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's expert evidence filed in support of certification.

The proposed class action alleged the defendant trust company breached its duties regarding syndicated mortgages held in registered savings accounts.

The court granted the motion to strike the expert's evidence in its entirety, finding the expert was not qualified, lacked independence, acted as a partisan advocate, and improperly provided legal argument and opinions on ultimate issues beyond his expertise.

This motion concerned the winding-up of Maple Bank GmbH.

The Liquidator sought approval for a Fourth Interim Distribution, a reduction in the reserve held, and approval of the Fourteenth Report of the Liquidator and its activities.

Additionally, the Liquidator sought approval for a Data Custodian Order.

There was no opposition to the requested relief, with Canada Revenue Agency's pending claim being addressed by a maintained reserve.

The court granted the motion, approving the distribution, the reduction in reserve, the Liquidator's report and activities, and the Data Custodian Order.

The defendants, based in Florida, moved to stay proceedings in Ontario, arguing lack of jurisdiction or *forum non conveniens*.

The plaintiff, an Ontario corporation, alleged breach of contract, tortious interference, Competition Act violations, and defamation, claiming the torts occurred in Ontario.

The court found Ontario had *jurisdiction simpliciter* due to the torts committed in Ontario but granted the stay, concluding that Florida was a "clearly more appropriate forum" primarily to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent verdicts, given existing litigation in Florida and the contractual disputes being governed by Florida law.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify a class action and dismissing claims against three respondents on the basis that the claims disclosed no reasonable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellants conceded that the motion judge made no error in law but challenged his application of the principles relating to the duty of care to the facts.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding his reasons correct and concluding that the appellants had pleaded no reasonable cause of action against the respondents.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's assessment of costs.