David Andrew Di Paolo

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

In this certified class proceeding arising from alleged failures by mutual fund managers to prevent market timing, the plaintiffs moved to compel broader documentary production and to settle the discovery plan.

The court held that the requested comprehensive trading data and additional OSC production were directed to damages quantification, not to the certified common issues limited to duty and breach in negligence and fiduciary duty.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on an economics expert to establish legal relevance, holding that relevance to the common issues was a matter of domestic law for the court.

The motion was dismissed in full, and the court indicated that any remaining discovery plan details could be finalized at a case conference.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $10 million class action settlement and class counsel fees regarding an alleged investment leveraging scheme.

While the court found the settlement quantum and proposed counsel fees to be fair and reasonable, it refused to approve the settlement at this time due to a lack of procedural fairness.

Specifically, the settlement administrator failed to implement a transparent challenge process for class members to dispute their individual compensation amounts, as required by the settlement agreement.

The motion was adjourned to allow the parties to implement the required challenge process.

The court considered a motion seeking approval of a proposed $10 million class action settlement relating to investment advice involving leveraged borrowing to purchase mutual or segregated funds.

Although the court found the overall settlement amount to be fair and reasonable in light of litigation risks, potential appeals, and the complexity of individualized damages, it determined that the settlement administration process lacked procedural fairness.

Specifically, the settlement agreement required a “challenge” mechanism allowing class members to contest the calculation of their compensation, but the administrator had not implemented a meaningful challenge process.

Several objectors raised concerns about how their losses were calculated and were given no adequate opportunity to dispute the administrator’s determinations.

The court therefore declined to approve the settlement at that stage and adjourned the motion to allow implementation of a proper challenge process.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Manitoba was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff alleged breach of employment contract obligations, including confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions, and related economic torts following the departure of an investment advisor to a competing firm.

Applying the presumptive connecting factor framework from Van Breda, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the employer carried on business in Ontario and the employment contract was formed in Ontario when acceptance was received there.

The defendants failed to rebut the presumption of a real and substantial connection or demonstrate that Manitoba was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff’s cross-motion to have the action tried together with three other related Ontario actions was also dismissed due to material factual and contractual differences between the cases.

In a contested federal election application, the appeal examined whether voting process defects required annulment where the vote margin was narrow.

The majority adopted a substantive test requiring proof both of a statutory irregularity tied to entitlement and that a person not entitled to vote actually voted.

It held multiple disqualified ballots should be restored because the evidentiary record supported entitlement or failed to prove an entitlement defect on the required standard.

The remaining invalid votes did not meet the threshold to overturn the result.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the fresh-evidence motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act and to certify a class proceeding against the defendants for misrepresentation, conspiracy, and oppression.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fabricated a financial crisis by including a 'going concern' note in the company's financial statements to artificially depress the share price, allowing insiders to acquire shares cheaply.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial, as the financial disclosures were factual, required by GAAP, and made after reasonable investigation.

The court also refused to certify the conspiracy claim due to a lack of factual basis and struck the oppression claim, ruling that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an oppression remedy under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act.

Following a successful application contesting a federal election in which the court declared the election null and void due to voting irregularities, the applicant sought $90,000 in costs.

The court considered whether any respondent could properly be characterized as an unsuccessful party responsible for paying those costs.

The successful candidate was found to have done nothing wrong and stood in a similar position to the applicant, while the Chief Electoral Officer maintained neutrality and could not legally take positions favouring any candidate.

Given the public interest nature of the proceeding and the absence of a party properly liable for costs, the court declined to award costs.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the applicant’s security for costs deposit was ordered returned.

The applicant, an unsuccessful candidate in a federal election decided by a plurality of 26 votes, brought an application to contest the election under s. 524(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act.

The applicant argued that irregularities in voter registration and vouching affected the result.

The court found that the onus was on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that irregularities occurred and affected the result.

The court identified 79 votes that were cast irregularly due to failures in registration and vouching procedures.

Because the number of irregular votes exceeded the plurality, the court declared the election null and void.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against financial advisors and their dealer, alleging they systemically recommended a 'Leveraging Scheme' to borrow money to invest in mutual funds without regard to suitability.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the class was identifiable, and common issues existed regarding the duty of care, breach of duty, and punitive damages.

The court declined to certify damages as a common issue, finding it required individual assessment.

The court also held that a class proceeding was preferable to the Ombudsman for Banking and Investment Services (OBSI) process, which lacked binding remedial powers and adequate investor participation.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence of an MFDA settlement was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against mutual fund managers for permitting market timing, which allegedly caused losses to long-term investors.

The defendants had previously entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding the same conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the OSC proceedings were the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the OSC proceedings were regulatory and lacked participatory rights for investors, and therefore did not fulfill the access to justice goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was deemed the preferable procedure.

The appellants, a stockbroker and two brokerage firms, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligence and breach of contract resulting in the respondents' investment losses.

The trial judge found the broker engaged in unauthorized trading and the firms failed to supervise him or warn the clients.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claims for loss of opportunity and punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on liability, apportionment, mitigation, and costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal involving stock broker liability.

The court applied the test for intervention and found that the proposed intervention would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal, as the issues in the main appeal were essentially fact-driven and the intervention was not supported by any of the parties.

The motion for intervenor status was dismissed with costs.