David Gadsden

The plaintiff sought an order to discontinue a putative class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations under the Securities Act.

Due to developments in jurisprudence regarding limitation periods and the inability to find a representative plaintiff for the remaining viable primary market claims, the plaintiff concluded the action was no longer viable.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action on a without-costs basis and approved the proposed notice plan.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion on the basis of forum non conveniens, the Litigation Trust and the Class sought costs.

The court awarded the Class $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis for maintaining a watching brief.

The court awarded the Litigation Trust full indemnity costs of $208,590.73, finding that the defendants' motion was captured by the Standstill Agreement between the parties, which provided for full indemnity costs in the event of a breach.

The defendants Pöyry brought a motion seeking orders to prohibit "Releasors" from assisting the Litigation Trustee in a Singapore action and declaring that the Litigation Trustee breached a court-approved settlement agreement by pursuing claims against Pöyry in Singapore.

Pöyry argued that the Litigation Trust's claims were covered by release and bar order provisions of a prior settlement agreement in the class action.

The Litigation Trust opposed, arguing the motion breached a Standstill Agreement, was barred by res judicata, and that the Ontario court should defer to the Singapore courts on grounds of comity and forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed Pöyry's motion, accepting the forum non conveniens arguments.

It declined to provide an opinion or interpret its own settlement orders for the Singapore court, emphasizing that the Singapore court was the appropriate forum to determine the effect of the Pöyry Settlement Agreement and the Ontario court's orders on the Singapore action.

Following a Court of Appeal order, the Superior Court of Justice conducted a trial of an issue to determine the value of the plaintiff's townhouse as a two-storey unit versus a three-storey unit as of December 2, 2014.

The plaintiff had purchased the unit believing it was three storeys, but the third floor was illegally built into the common element space.

The court evaluated competing expert appraisal evidence, ultimately preferring the plaintiff's expert who conducted a thorough inspection and appropriately applied the direct comparison approach.

The court fixed the plaintiff's damages for the loss of the third floor at $465,000.

A corporation incorporated in the British Virgin Islands appealed Ontario tax reassessments requiring it to include interest received from a related Canadian company as taxable corporate income under the Corporations Tax Act.

The interest arose from specialty debt instruments issued as part of a corporate tax planning structure intended to replace retained earnings with intercompany borrowings.

The court considered whether the interest constituted income from a business carried on in Canada, whether the Ontario General Anti-Avoidance Rule applied, and whether the income triggered corporate minimum tax.

Relying on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Inter-Leasing, the court held the interest was income from property rather than business income and therefore not taxable under the applicable provisions.

The GAAR did not apply and the corporate minimum tax regime was also inapplicable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a corporate defendant, retain a placeholder defendant, and delete certain words.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding that the addition of the corporate defendant was a correction of a misnomer rather than the addition of a new party after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue or that their claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty would fail.

In a commercial dispute concerning an inventory liquidation contract, the court issued case management directions after the plaintiff failed to file its pre-trial conference memorandum in time to permit a productive conference.

The court scheduled a further pre-trial conference and expressed concern that the parties’ estimate of an eight to ten day trial was disproportionate given that less than $500,000 was at stake.

The judge suggested that the parties consider a hybrid trial format and ordered the plaintiff to deliver answers to outstanding undertakings within 30 days.

With respect to refusals arising from examinations for discovery, the court offered the defendants two options: either refrain from bringing a refusals motion with the understanding that issues could be addressed at trial, or bring a motion in writing subject to potential per‑refusal cost consequences.

The directions were intended to streamline the proceeding and encourage proportional litigation conduct.

A receiver was appointed over a fraudulent investment scheme where the deposits of 24 investors were commingled.

The receiver sought directions on how to distribute the remaining funds, which had a significant shortfall.

One group of investors argued for a pro rata distribution based on original contributions, while another argued for the Lowest Intermediate Balance Rule (LIBR).

The court held that LIBR is the general rule for resolving competing claims to commingled funds unless it is unworkable.

Finding that the receiver could practically calculate the LIBR distributions, the court ordered the funds to be distributed according to LIBR.

The moving parties in a proposed securities misrepresentation class proceeding sought court approval of a third‑party litigation funding agreement prior to certification.

The proposed agreement provided that the funder would pay certain disbursements and indemnify the plaintiffs against adverse costs in exchange for a capped commission from any settlement or judgment.

The court considered the developing law on litigation funding, including concerns about champerty and maintenance, and confirmed that such agreements are not categorically unlawful but require judicial approval.

Finding that the agreement preserved counsel’s independence, protected defendants through security for costs, and promoted access to justice, the court approved the funding arrangement.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.