Douglas A. Fenton

The applicants sought a declaration that a contingency fee agreement (CFA) executed in October 2019 applied only to the trial award and not to the increased award on appeal or to a subsequent settlement.

The respondent law firm claimed entitlement to a 30% contingency on both the appeal award and settlement.

The court found that the CFA was a trial retainer only, that no valid contingency fee agreement existed for the appeal (as any alleged oral agreement failed to comply with the Solicitors Act requirement that contingency fee agreements be in writing), and that the CFA did not apply to the settlement.

The court awarded the lawyers fees on a quantum meruit basis for their appeal work.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

The decision concerns a motion by Saad Aljabri and related parties for leave to issue a counterclaim in a complex civil action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and conspiracy was statute-barred under Ontario law, and that the applicants failed to prove that Saudi law applied or that any exception to the limitation period existed.

The court also found that the proposed claims for declaratory relief against additional parties were not supported by a tenable cause of action.

The risk of prejudice to the plaintiffs, including loss of the scheduled trial date and increased costs, further supported dismissal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Shantanu Shirodkar’s appeal seeking to certify a class action against Coinbase Global, Inc. and its subsidiaries for alleged violations of securities laws.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction over the non-Canadian Coinbase entities and that Ireland was the preferable forum for the claims, staying the action against Coinbase Canada as well.

The decision addresses the interpretation of forum selection clauses, the application of the “real and substantial connection” test, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the context of cross-border crypto-asset trading.

The decision addresses a motion by Saad Aljabri, Mohammed Aljabri, and various corporate defendants to vary Mareva orders freezing their worldwide assets, seeking the release of frozen funds to pay legal fees.

The court grants the motion for all moving parties except Dreams International Advisory Services Ltd., finding that the Mareva Defendants have shown they lack access to other assets or reliable third-party funding, and that a variation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The court dismisses the motion by Dreams, finding insufficient evidence that it lacks access to other funds.

The decision reviews the legal test for varying Mareva orders and applies a balancing of interests, including the merits of the case, the complexity of the litigation, and the conduct of the parties.

This decision addresses three motions in the receivership of the Bridging Funds: (1) the Receiver’s motion for an interim distribution to unitholders, (2) approval of a settlement with the BlackRock Parties, and (3) the unitholders’ motion for a constructive trust.

The court approved the interim distribution but required a sufficient reserve for the disputed Cerieco claim until its final determination.

The BlackRock settlement was approved.

The constructive trust motion was deferred pending resolution of the Cerieco claim.

The decision provides detailed guidance on the treatment of creditor and unitholder claims in a complex receivership under the Securities Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that a document ("the Proffer") provided by the defendant to the Attorney General for Canada (AGC) under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act was not subject to privilege or that any such privilege had been waived, and an order for its production.

The defendant asserted litigation privilege.

The court found that the Proffer was created for the dominant purpose of preparing for litigation, making it presumptively protected by litigation privilege.

The court further held that the disclosure of the Proffer to the AGC, being a statutory compulsion, did not constitute a voluntary waiver of privilege, nor did fairness and consistency require waiver.

The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.

This case addresses a corporate deadlock within AnalytixInsight Inc. (ALY) between two factions of its board of directors, stemming from serious allegations of misconduct, including insider tipping, self-dealing, and material non-disclosure, against the former CEO and his allies.

The Applicant Faction sought an investigation under the Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and oppression remedy relief.

The court found a prima facie case of oppressive and dishonest conduct by the Respondent Faction, warranting immediate interim intervention.

An inspector was ordered to investigate the allegations, and the alleged wrongdoers were temporarily precluded from board participation, with an interim board appointed to ensure company functionality.

This is a securities class action where the Plaintiff sought approval of a settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants and pre-settlement orders for a proposed settlement with the Gatos Defendants.

The court approved the C$1,000,000 settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

For the Gatos Defendants, the court granted leave to proceed under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, and approved the proposed notice plan and ancillary orders, paving the way for a future US$3,000,000 settlement approval motion.

The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Coinbase Europe Limited, and Coinbase Canada Inc., brought a motion to dismiss a putative class action for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, to permanently stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Ontario securities legislation by distributing crypto assets without complying with prospectus requirements.

The court found presence-based jurisdiction only over Coinbase Canada Inc. due to its business activities in Ontario.

However, the court found no presence-based, consent-based, or assumed jurisdiction over Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., or Coinbase Global.

Consequently, the action against Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., and Coinbase Global was dismissed.

The court then considered forum non conveniens for Coinbase Canada Inc., concluding that Ireland was a clearly more appropriate forum given that the plaintiff's claims arose from transactions with Coinbase Europe, which was domiciled in Ireland, and the lack of a class action framework in Ireland was not a decisive juridical disadvantage.

The action against Coinbase Canada Inc. was permanently stayed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the Defendant, Andrew Rudensky, to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs argued for no costs or an offset, asserting Mr. Rudensky's fault for the default.

The court found the Plaintiffs solely responsible for failing to properly serve Mr. Rudensky, thus dismissing their arguments regarding his alleged fault or delay.

The court also rejected Mr. Rudensky's claim for substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10, finding that his offer to settle was not "beaten" by the costs endorsement itself.

Ultimately, the court fixed Mr. Rudensky's partial indemnity costs at $79,253.40, payable by the Plaintiffs within 30 days.

The defendant, Andrew Rudensky, moved to set aside a default judgment and noting of default obtained by the plaintiffs for defamation.

The court found that the Amended Statement of Claim was not properly served on Mr. Rudensky at his place of residence, rendering the default judgment irregularly obtained.

Applying the "as of right" rule for irregularly obtained judgments, the court set aside both the default judgment and the noting of default.

The Plaintiffs, Anson Advisors Inc. and Moez Kassam, brought a motion for default judgment against Andrew Rudensky for defamation, seeking $500,000 in general damages and a permanent injunction.

Rudensky, who had been noted in default and had largely ignored the proceedings, appeared at the last minute to request an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the facts pleaded in the Amended Claim, deemed admitted by Rudensky's default, established the tort of defamation.

Considering the extensive and malicious nature of the online publications, the plaintiffs' professional standing, and the defendant's persistent and evasive conduct, the court awarded $450,000 in general damages and granted a permanent injunction to prevent further defamatory publications.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, addressed two issues in a case conference: a proposed motion by the defendants to amend their Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and a proposed anti-SLAPP motion.

The court granted leave to amend the pleading by consent.

However, the court declined to schedule the anti-SLAPP motion, finding it untimely given the action was nearly three years old and significant litigation steps had already occurred.

The court emphasized that anti-SLAPP motions are screening devices meant for early stages, not surrogates for summary judgment or trial, and that the evidence relied upon for timeliness was available much earlier.

The parties were directed to agree on a case management timetable to prepare for trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued supplementary reasons regarding the remedy and costs following its prior decision (2023 ONCA 139) which declared s. 37.10.1(2) of the Election Finances Act unconstitutional.

The appellants sought to invalidate additional provisions, including the definition of "political advertising," s. 37.0.1, s. 37.10.1(3)-(3.1), and s. 37.10.2.

The court declined this request, finding these provisions were not inextricably linked to the previously invalidated section and were not independently shown to infringe section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court also noted that the election period spending limits (s. 37.10.1(1)) were not challenged and remain in force.

No disposition was made as to costs, as the parties had reached an agreement.

This appeal concerned the constitutional validity of Ontario's third-party election spending limits, specifically the extension of the pre-writ restricted period from 6 to 12 months without increasing the spending cap.

The appellants argued this infringed the informational component of the right to vote under s. 3 of the Charter, which is not subject to the notwithstanding clause (s. 33).

The Court of Appeal found that while s. 33 was properly invoked, the extended spending restrictions were not "carefully tailored" and did not permit a "modest informational campaign," thereby infringing the s. 3 right to meaningful participation in the electoral process.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The court declared the impugned provision invalid and suspended the declaration for 12 months.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.

The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.

The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendant, Dr. Saad, sought a declaratory order that evidence he would provide in support of a renewed motion to stay the action would be inadmissible in a pending contempt proceeding against him, relying on the s. 13 Charter right against self-incrimination.

The Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the evidence was not compelled and the proceedings were not "other proceedings." The court dismissed Dr. Saad's motion, holding that his evidence on the stay motion was not statutorily compelled, and therefore s. 13 of the Charter was not engaged.

The court clarified that the proper time to seek use immunity would be at the contempt hearing itself.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a second Charter challenge to Ontario's election advertising spending restrictions (Bill 307), which the Attorney General successfully defended.

The Attorney General sought $580,652.54 in costs.

The Applicants argued against a costs award, citing the public importance of constitutional litigation and access to justice, and challenged the quantum of costs.

The court rejected the Applicants' access to justice argument, noting their financial capacity, and found the Attorney General's choice of external counsel and the work performed to be reasonable.

The court awarded the Attorney General $500,000 in all-inclusive costs, apportioned among the Applicant groups.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application.

The respondent, The Kraft Heinz Company, sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that they had made a more favourable offer to settle and that the applicant, The Corporation of the Township of South Stormont, had been less than fully candid.

The Township conceded costs but disputed the substantial indemnity scale, arguing the offer was not Rule 49 compliant and denying any sanctionable conduct.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the offer not sufficiently fixed or understandable for Rule 49.10 consequences and no conduct worthy of sanction.

The court also found the time claimed by both sides somewhat excessive and the hourly rates suggested by the respondent's counsel too high for the Ottawa region.