D. Lascaris

The defendants brought a motion to amend the class definition in an Ontario securities class action to exclude persons who would be bound by a pending settlement in parallel U.S. class proceedings.

The U.S. settlement was conditional on the Ontario court granting this amendment.

The court applied the Currie factors and recognized the U.S. court's judgment approving the settlement, finding that the U.S. court had a real and substantial connection to the claims, and that the absent class members were accorded procedural fairness and adequate representation.

The court further determined that amending the class was the preferable procedure, as it would facilitate access to justice for the overlapping class members without unfairly prejudicing the remaining class members.

The motion was granted and the class definition was amended.

In a securities class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought costs following successful motions in which they opposed summary judgment and obtained nunc pro tunc relief permitting pursuit of a statutory claim despite the expiry of a limitation period under the Securities Act.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged delay by the plaintiffs, the alleged unnecessary nature of the cross‑motion, and the claim that the plaintiffs succeeded on grounds not advanced by their counsel.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no delay attributable to the plaintiffs and confirming that the cross‑motion seeking nunc pro tunc relief was appropriate.

The court held that the plaintiffs succeeded on their arguments regarding the court’s nunc pro tunc authority and the interpretation of the Court of Appeal’s Timminco decision.

Applying the general rule that costs follow the event, the court awarded the plaintiffs their claimed partial indemnity costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' statutory claims for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act, arguing the claims were statute-barred by the three-year limitation period in s. 138.14.

The plaintiffs had brought a motion for leave to assert the statutory claims within the limitation period, but the limitation period expired while the court's decision on the leave motion was under reserve.

The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction and authority under the Rules of Civil Procedure to grant the leave order nunc pro tunc (retroactively) to the date the leave motion was argued, applying the actus curiae maxim to prevent injustice caused by the court's delay.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their statement of claim effective the date the leave motion concluded.

In a class proceeding, the court determined costs arising from motions concerning the approval of the form, content, and timing of a certification notice and a motion by a class member to participate.

The participating class member was granted leave under s. 14 of the Class Proceedings Act to participate in the notice motion.

Although the plaintiffs succeeded on the timing of notice and the participating class member succeeded on participation, neither side was fully successful regarding the notice content, particularly concerning references to related U.S. proceedings.

The court held that class members who actively participate may be exposed to costs under s. 14(2), notwithstanding the protection for passive class members under s. 31.

However, given the novelty of issues concerning overlapping global class members and parallel U.S. proceedings, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The plaintiffs in an Ontario securities class action moved for approval of the notice of certification.

The lead plaintiff in parallel U.S. proceedings, who was also a member of the Ontario global class, moved to participate in the motion, arguing that the notice should be delayed and should include detailed information about the U.S. proceedings.

The court granted the U.S. plaintiff standing to participate but held that the notice of certification should be issued promptly to protect class members' litigation autonomy.

The court determined that the notice should inform class members of the existence of the U.S. proceedings but should not include detailed or comparative information, as that would be confusing and unnecessary at this stage.