Edward M. Morgan

The plaintiffs in three related proposed class actions sought leave to proceed under the Securities Act, certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes, and approval of a Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing.

The actions alleged misrepresentations by a cannabis company regarding its facility expansion.

The court found the certification criteria were met for settlement purposes, granted leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and approved the form and dissemination plan for the settlement notice.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Amazon moved for approval of a third-party funding agreement under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, noting it provided sufficient funding for disbursements and adverse costs without overcompensating the funder.

The court also granted an order designating the plaintiff's lawyers as class counsel and precluding the commencement of similar actions in Ontario without leave of the court.

The plaintiff in a proposed securities class action sought approval of a third-party funding agreement (After-the-Event insurance) under s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff in a parallel British Columbia class action sought to intervene to oppose the funding, arguing the B.C. action was self-funded and therefore cheaper.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, noting the B.C. action was languishing and there was no evidence it would actually be cheaper.

The court approved the funding agreement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, as it did not diminish the plaintiff's control over the litigation and the insurers were financially capable.

Costs of the intervention motion were awarded to the plaintiff against the proposed intervenor.

The defendants and their alter ego, Nest Services Limited, brought a motion for directions on whether they could serve the plaintiffs with an application for an anti-anti-suit injunction in Hong Kong.

The court had previously declared the arbitration agreement void and issued an anti-suit injunction barring the defendants from pursuing arbitration in Hong Kong.

The court held that pursuing the anti-anti-suit injunction was effectively pursuing the enjoined arbitrations, and directed that the defendants may not take any steps to advance the arbitrations.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants requested a modest $5,000 each, despite incurring over $100,000 each in legal expenses over a decade of unproductive litigation.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs, focusing on her medical accommodations and stating she could not afford the requested amount.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, reducing the requested amount and ordering the plaintiff to pay $3,500 to each of the four defendants, totaling $14,000.

The plaintiffs successfully obtained an anti-suit injunction to halt an arbitration commenced by the defendants in Hong Kong, which was found to be an abusive collateral attack on prior Ontario rulings.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $261,900 in substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing the defendants' vexatious and oppressive tactics in pursuing the foreign arbitration and threatening the representative plaintiffs with personal financial jeopardy.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board and several Chiefs of Police regarding the practice of 'carding' or street checks.

The plaintiffs alleged that the practice disproportionately targeted Black and Indigenous individuals, violating their Charter rights and constituting systemic negligence and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court found that the plaintiffs met all the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including establishing a valid cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and suitable representative plaintiffs.

The motion for certification was granted.

The plaintiffs moved without notice for a Norwich Order and Mareva Injunction against Benjamin Allan Ward, the former CEO of Wayland Group Corp., in connection with a proposed investors' class action under the Ontario Securities Act.

Ward had been noted in default and evaded service.

The court found evidence of Ward's history of securities fraud, improper conduct, evasion of service, and removal of assets to multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the Mareva Injunction to prevent asset dissipation pending a default judgment motion scheduled for March 10, 2026, where damages exceeding $49 million are sought on behalf of the proposed class.

Two class action proceedings—one against TELUS Communications Company and related entities, and one against Bell Mobility Inc.—were brought by plaintiffs alleging that the defendants engaged in similar practices of rounding up seconds to minutes on cell phone bills.

The defendants moved to consolidate the two actions for trial or summary judgment.

The court granted the motion to hear the two summary judgment motions consecutively in a single three-week block of hearing time, finding that the common issues were identical and that separate proceedings would create an unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and risk inconsistent findings.

However, the court determined that the case management judge would not preside over the summary judgment motions, as the principles underlying Rules 37.15(1) and 77.06(2)—which prohibit a case management judge from presiding at trial without consent—apply equally to summary judgment motions.

This is a class action alleging financial misrepresentations in the sale of the defendant's securities.

The class comprises persons or entities who acquired securities between March 30, 2011 and November 7, 2013.

The action was certified under the Class Proceedings Act in December 2018.

The parties reached a proposed settlement whereby the defendant will pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability to resolve all claims.

The court approved the notice plan for dissemination to class members and appointed Epiq Global as the settlement administrator.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

The plaintiff discontinued a proposed class action against the defendant, a discount brokerage firm, after the certification motion was adjourned.

The defendant sought costs for defending itself against the certification motion.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and should be apportioned among the multiple defendants originally sued.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced by approximately 25% to account for access to justice concerns in class action litigation.

In a proposed class action alleging defective cochlear implants, the defendants moved for production of comprehensive medical records from the representative plaintiff and a putative class member.

The plaintiff had produced only limited medical records, asserting that other health issues were not relevant to the implant defect claim.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the full medical records were necessary to assess issues of commonality, preferability, and negligence at the certification stage, particularly given the plaintiff's acknowledgment of co-morbidities and his disagreement with his physician regarding the source of his symptoms.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

This is a costs decision arising from a class action certification motion concerning the now-defunct "birth alerts" policy issued by Children's Aid Societies in Ontario.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the province of Ontario and 50 CAS defendants on behalf of mothers claiming compensation for discriminatory treatment.

The court certified the action against Ontario but denied certification against the CAS defendants due to structural defects in the pleading (the Ragoonanan problem).

The plaintiffs settled with Ontario for $300,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The CAS defendants sought $564,318.61 in costs.

The court reduced this amount to $335,000, applying a 40% discount under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act to reflect the public interest nature of the case and access to justice concerns.

The decision concerns the certification and approval of a partial settlement in a class action regarding business interruption insurance for dentists, specifically Aviva’s “Triple Guard” policies marketed by CDSPI.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes as against CDSPI and approved the settlement, finding that all statutory criteria were met and that the settlement was fair and reasonable.

The court also dismissed Aviva’s motion for a stay, holding that disclosure of the settlement was timely and that Aviva’s rights were not prejudiced by the settlement or its timing.

The court approved a proposed settlement and certified the action for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class consists of approximately 100 investors in a failed real estate limited partnership project.

The settlement restores the class members’ proportionate interest in the property, now with greater development density and less debt, and is considered generous.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved class counsel’s fees.

The action will continue only as between the defendants for unresolved crossclaims.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, requested an adjournment due to health issues and the volume of materials recently served on her.

The court granted the adjournment, scheduling the motion for December 1, 2025, and directed the defendants not to serve any further materials on Ms. Cherry before the motion.

The court clarified that related proceedings involving Ms. Cherry and Novex Insurance Company would not affect the timing of the present motion.

This costs endorsement addresses the Plaintiff's entitlement to costs following an unsuccessful motion by the Defendants to amend the certification of a class action.

The court awards the Plaintiff $150,000 in costs, finding the Defendants' objections unpersuasive, particularly in the absence of their own Bill of Costs for comparison.

The court commends Plaintiff's counsel, especially Ms. Nayerahmadi, for effective advocacy.

The court considered an application by Cannect International Mortgage Corporation and related parties to enforce a costs order against Condoman Developments Inc. and related parties, following failed attempts by Condoman to challenge a mortgage and avoid payment.

The court reviewed the history of the dispute, Condoman’s arguments of impecuniosity, and the legal principles governing enforcement of costs orders, ultimately dismissing Condoman’s action and striking its defence to counterclaim for non-payment of costs.

This endorsement addresses two production issues in a proposed class action for misrepresentation under the Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff sought production of (1) a podcast audio or transcript quoted by defendant Michael Novogratz in his affidavit, and (2) documents underlying a chart referenced by defendant Alex Ioffe.

The court ordered production of the portion of the podcast transcript quoted in the affidavit, but declined to order production of the underlying documents for the chart, finding such requests more appropriate for cross-examination.

The court also set out a timetable for the upcoming motions and clarified the process for resolving refusals.