Derek D. Ricci

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $2,608,798 in damages and successfully defended a counterclaim, the court determined costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court rejected the defendants' request for a distributive costs analysis and the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendants' discovery breaches did not amount to reprehensible conduct.

Costs were fixed at $1,900,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court also calculated pre-judgment interest on the past pecuniary loss at the statutory rate of 2% applied in six-month intervals pursuant to s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, totaling $161,866.13.

In a CCAA restructuring involving a remote iron ore mining operation facing an immediate cash crisis before a narrow seasonal shipping window, the applicants sought approval of interim debtor-in-possession financing and a super-priority charge.

Competing secured creditor groups proposed rival DIP facilities, but the court approved the Crown lender’s DIP for the interim bridge period only, emphasizing the urgent need for operational stability, the monitor’s support, and the limited prejudice given the de novo rehearing scheduled within weeks.

The court added consultation, consent, and information protections to preserve a level playing field for the competing DIP proponents before the full return motion.

The stay of proceedings was extended, authority was granted to pay certain critical pre-filing suppliers with the monitor’s consent, and the sealing request was adjourned.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in an illegal distribution of Canopy Growth Corporation shares and that Cormark and Kennedy failed to deal fairly, honestly, and in good faith with Canopy, or alternatively, acted contrary to the public interest.

The allegations centered on a series of transactions involving a private placement, a securities loan agreement, and short sales executed when Canopy was added to the TSX composite index.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed all allegations, finding that the transactions did not constitute an illegal distribution under the extended definition, Canopy was not a client of Cormark or Kennedy, and the respondents did not mislead Canopy or otherwise engage the Tribunal's public interest jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought motions for approval of a settlement agreement, a discretionary fund, class counsel fees, and a notice program in a class action concerning allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implants.

The court approved the claims-made settlement and the $750,000 discretionary fund, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks.

The court also approved a 25% contingency fee for class counsel and a $1.25 million contribution from the defendants towards fees and disbursements.

However, the court dismissed the representative plaintiff's request for a $7,500 honorarium, finding no exceptional circumstances of personal hardship.

This case involved a shareholder dispute where OneMove Capital Corporation sought to affirm the validity of its proposal under s. 99 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) to remove and replace a director, and to compel Dye & Durham Limited to include this proposal in its information circular.

Dye & Durham brought a counter-application to omit the proposal and sought a declaration that OneMove and Tyler Proud breached a 2020 Investor Rights Agreement (IRA).

The court ruled that a shareholder cannot use the s. 99 proposal mechanism to remove a director, as director removal requires a special meeting requisitioned under s. 105 of the OBCA.

However, the court also found that OneMove's proposal, if permissible, would not fall under the "personal grievance" exception of s. 99(5)(b) or (b.1), as it related significantly to the company's business affairs.

Furthermore, the court determined that the IRA did not prohibit OneMove from seeking to remove its nominee director through proper OBCA channels, and dismissed Dye & Durham's other alleged breaches of the IRA as theoretical.

The plaintiff, 2770095 Ontario Inc., brought a motion to set aside a prior decision dismissing its action as an abuse of process due to a champertous agreement, and to substitute Affinitas Medios de Pago S.A.P.I de C.V. as the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that its discretion to alter a judgment before entry is limited to technical corrections or preventing a miscarriage of justice.

The requested change was not technical, and no miscarriage of justice would occur, especially since the plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend its pleadings earlier and could still commence a new action.

Granting the relief would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the plaintiff's prior abuse of process.

The respondent, Marc Judah Bistricer, brought a motion seeking additional disclosure from Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding documents obtained during its investigation.

Staff alleged that the respondents engaged in abusive short selling and other transactions contrary to the animating principles of the Securities Act.

Bistricer sought documents relating to similar transactions by others and all materials obtained under section 11 investigation orders.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the disclosure request was too vague and imprecise.

Furthermore, even interpreting the request generously, the Tribunal held that the requested documents were irrelevant, as the standard for the respondents' conduct is not determined by the prevalence of similar conduct by others in the market, and Staff's disclosure obligation does not extend to all materials obtained during an investigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

Following the approval of a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act, the successful applicant sought costs against the objecting creditors.

The objectors argued the applicant was disentitled to costs for failing to request them initially and that the quantum sought was excessive.

The court rejected the disentitlement argument, finding the objectors had notice that costs would be addressed in writing.

The court awarded $100,000 in costs, reducing the requested amount for proportionality, and ordered the costs payable jointly and severally by the objectors as they had pursued a common strategy.

The applicant mining company sought a final order approving a Plan of Arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act to sever ties with the Kyrgyz Republic following the state's seizure of its flagship mine.

Two unsecured judgment creditors of the Republic objected, seeking to enforce their arbitral awards against the Republic's shares in the applicant or garnish payments under the Arrangement.

The court approved the Arrangement, finding it met the statutory requirements, had a valid business purpose, and was fair and reasonable.

The court held the creditors lacked standing to oppose the Arrangement and that garnishment was inappropriate as it would result in double jeopardy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The plaintiff commenced an action regarding a stream of royalty payments from a mine in Guatemala.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim.

In response, the plaintiff delivered an amended statement of claim.

The defendants moved to declare the amended claim a nullity, arguing it could not be amended without leave in the face of a motion to strike.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend.

The court held that while leave is required to amend a claim in the face of a motion to strike, the motion for leave should be heard first.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not time-barred, did not withdraw admissions, and were sufficiently particularized.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to stay the plaintiff's Toronto action in favour of their own Windsor action, which involved the same parties and overlapping issues arising from a share purchase agreement.

The court applied the four-factor test under Rule 21.01(3)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiff bore the chief burden of proof and its claim was more comprehensive, the court found that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the defendants, as the parties, the dispute, and the alleged torts were all located in Essex County.

The cross-motion was granted, and the Toronto action was stayed with leave to convert it into a counterclaim in the Windsor action.

The applicant brought an ex parte initial application for an interim order relating to a proposed plan of arrangement under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted the interim order but issued this endorsement to provide directions to the bar regarding the information that should be included in factums for such applications.

The court emphasized that while the purpose of an interim motion is not to assess the ultimate fairness of the plan, the court still requires concrete qualitative and quantitative explanations of fairness to determine appropriate terms of service and meeting parameters.

The court issued a protective order on consent of the parties in a case involving allegations of appropriation and misuse of confidential technical and business information.

The order governs the handling and protection of confidential documents and information exchanged during discovery, requiring advance notice before filing such materials in court, but explicitly stating it does not constitute a sealing order or publication ban.

The court also provided specific case management directions for the litigation.

This is the first case management endorsement for an action accepted into the Civil Case Management Pilot Project.

The court outlined the purpose of case management, emphasizing efficiency and proportionality.

The parties had agreed on a Discovery Plan.

A joint request for a "Confidentiality Order" which constituted a sealing order, was declined without substantive determination because it required a formal motion satisfying the Supreme Court's test for restricting access to the court.

The endorsement provided specific directions for documentary production, examinations for discovery, and the scheduling of future motions, including for a sealing order or security for costs.

It also set the date for the next case management conference and general directions for cooperation and efficiency.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Mangrove Partners applied for a joint hearing before the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) and the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding a proposed transaction between TransAlta Corporation and Brookfield.

TransAlta brought a motion arguing the OSC should decline to hear the application due to an insufficient nexus with Ontario.

The OSC found that while it had jurisdiction, there were no compelling circumstances to warrant exercising it concurrently with the ASC, which was the principal regulator and had stronger connections to the dispute.

The OSC declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.