Dimitri Lascaris

This is a supplementary endorsement on costs following a fair value application.

The applicant, 1843208 Ontario Inc., was largely successful in the underlying application, with the court determining the fair value of shares at $1.50, significantly lower than the $8.91 sought by the dissenting shareholders.

The dissenting shareholders argued against paying costs, citing that the determined value exceeded the company's initial formal offer and their success on the interest issue.

The court found the dissenting shareholders' valuation position unreasonable and unrealistic, and their success on interest minor.

Applying the principles of costs, particularly that dissenting shareholders do not get a "free ride" in valuation proceedings, the court awarded the applicant $1,075,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable by the dissenting shareholders.

The applicant, 1843208 Ontario Inc., sought to fix the fair value of shares of dissenting shareholders of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation at $1.50 per share following a plan of arrangement.

The Dissent Group argued for a fair value of $8.91 per share.

The court found that the market price of $1.50, established through a contested takeover bid process, was the best objective evidence of fair value, rejecting the Dissent Group's higher valuation which relied on a discounted cash flow analysis based on unproven mineral resources and overly optimistic projections.

The court also awarded interest to the Dissent Group for the entire period, including a significant delay caused by a stay of proceedings related to a class action.

This decision concerns a carriage motion between two proposed securities class actions, Kennedy v. Akumin Inc. and Longair v. Akumin Inc., brought under the amended Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court applied the new s. 13.1 of the CPA, which mandates a focus on efficiency and likelihood of success in advancing class members' claims.

The Longair action proposed a broader class period, alleged more categories of misrepresentation, and named additional defendants, including the company's auditor.

The court found that the Longair action better advanced the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification by encompassing more viable claims and defendants, despite some reservations about the claim against the auditor.

Carriage was granted to the Longair action, and the Kennedy action was stayed.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

Two competing teams of legal counsel sought carriage of a proposed securities class action against CannTrust Holdings Inc. and other defendants for alleged misrepresentations regarding unlicensed cannabis production.

The court granted carriage to the Consortium team, finding that the competing TGF/RG team had a disqualifying conflict of interest because they excluded RBC Dominion Securities Inc., a current client of one of the firms, as a defendant.

The court held that excluding a necessary defendant to prefer a client's interests prejudiced the proposed class members by reducing potential recovery.

Following dismissal of the defendants’ motion for leave to appeal orders made in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the complexity of the class action and the substantial materials filed but found the hourly rates claimed by counsel excessive.

The court also reduced photocopying disbursements due to unnecessary duplication.

The plaintiff was awarded reduced costs reflecting reasonable fees and adjusted disbursements.

Following dismissal of a securities class action leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act, the successful defendant sought substantial partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that the case raised a novel legal issue and that no costs should be awarded under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected this characterization, finding the claim to be a conventional secondary market misrepresentation action and concluding that the leave motion lacked merit.

Applying the Civil Rules Committee Grid rates and reducing certain disbursements, the court fixed costs at $170,000 all-inclusive payable by the plaintiff.

Following certification of a securities class action, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the leave and certification motions.

The moving parties sought more than $1.18 million in fees and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and historical benchmarking when assessing certification-motion costs under Rule 57.01(1).

After adjusting excessive hourly rates and disbursements, and considering historical averages for comparable certification motions, the court fixed costs at $467,234 payable forthwith, with an additional $100,000 in disbursements payable in the cause.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring an action against Manulife Financial Corporation and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of Manulife's risk management practices and failed to disclose its massive unhedged exposure to equity market risk prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial, and certified the action as a class proceeding, certifying seven common issues.

The plaintiffs sought consent certification of a proposed securities class action alleging that the defendant mining company and certain officers misrepresented the scope and impact of water inflow problems at a Quebec gold mine, causing losses to purchasers of the company’s shares.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and, given the parties’ consent and the evidentiary record, found that the statutory criteria were satisfied.

The plaintiffs also sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act to pursue statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims.

The court held that the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

Certification and leave were granted.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, shareholder class action plaintiffs sought to limit the scope of a stay of proceedings so that certification, leave, and amendment motions in related Ontario and Quebec securities class actions could proceed against auditors, underwriters, and former directors.

The court applied the established test for lifting a CCAA stay, considering relative prejudice, balance of convenience, and the merits.

Given the pending appeal concerning whether shareholder claims constituted “equity claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the imminent creditor meeting regarding a proposed plan of arrangement, the court found that maintaining the stay temporarily would avoid prejudice and promote orderly proceedings.

The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the stay so that the auditors and underwriters could focus on the appeal and restructuring process.

The motion to limit the stay was dismissed without prejudice to renewal after the creditor meeting.

After dismissing an application for a Norwich order compelling a newspaper to reveal confidential sources related to a business news story, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding raised novel and public interest issues linked to a proposed securities class action.

The court held that although the litigation had some public interest elements, it was fundamentally a private claim seeking recovery of trading losses.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and considering the access to justice concerns noted by the Court of Appeal in class action jurisprudence, the court reduced the respondents’ claimed costs but fixed a substantial award.

Costs were ordered against the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a Norwich order compelling a journalist and newspaper to disclose the identities of confidential sources quoted in an article concerning the BCE leveraged buy-out negotiations.

The applicant alleged the sources’ statements were misleading or unlawful under the Securities Act and caused trading losses, and intended to pursue a proposed securities class action against them.

The court applied the Norwich test together with the Wigmore framework for journalist‑source privilege.

It found that any alleged breach of securities law was speculative and minimal, and that the public interest in protecting confidential journalistic sources outweighed the limited interest in disclosure for a civil claim.

The journalist‑source privilege was therefore upheld and disclosure refused.

The proposed representative plaintiff in a class proceeding alleged misrepresentations by the defendant, Canadian Solar Inc., in its secondary market disclosure.

The defendant's shares traded only on the NASDAQ exchange, not in Canada.

The defendant appealed a motion judge's finding that it was a 'responsible issuer' under s. 138.1 of the Securities Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'responsible issuer' does not require the issuer's securities to be publicly traded in Canada, provided the issuer has a real and substantial connection to Ontario.