Edward M. Morgan

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants, which dismissed the plaintiffs' action in its entirety.

The court considered the defendants' requests for partial indemnity costs and the plaintiffs' financial hardship.

Exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court reduced the costs payable by the plaintiffs, ordering them to pay $15,000 to one defendant and $15,000 to the corporate defendants, inclusive of all fees, disbursements, and HST.

Unifund Assurance Company brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement requiring Dieter Knoppke to pay $600,000.

Alex Krek's estate sought a continuation order and removal of an encumbrance from title.

The court granted Unifund's motion, ordering Knoppke to pay the settlement amount with 5% pre-judgment interest.

The court also granted the Krek estate's requests.

While acknowledging Knoppke's egregious conduct, the court declined to award punitive damages due to his absence and lack of instructions to counsel, opting instead to award full indemnity costs to Unifund and partial indemnity costs to the Krek estate.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against Binance for illegal sales of cryptocurrency derivative products without registration or prospectus, contrary to the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The court granted certification, finding a recognizable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common issues suitable for class-wide determination, including liability and remedies like rescission and aggregate damages.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the mechanical impossibility of rescission and the unfeasibility of aggregate damages, noting a lack of factual basis for their claims of user-to-user contracts.

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 moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which alleged solicitor's negligence against one defendant and sought damages against the other defendants (former mortgagee).

The court found the action time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was commenced more than two years after the plaintiffs were aware of their claims.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of solicitor's negligence or a valid cause of action against the mortgagee, concluding that the plaintiffs' financial hardships were a consequence of their mortgage default and the new lender's risk assessment, not the defendants' fault.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant, Liibaan Yusuf, was charged with firearm possession offences under the Criminal Code following a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence regarding the firearm's location in a car where Yusuf was a passenger.

The court found that while Yusuf's knowledge and control of the firearm was one reasonable inference, it was not the only one, given that other individuals had access to the vehicle and the evidence was ambiguous.

The Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction and were unsuccessful.

The successful defendants sought costs of approximately $121,882 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs were excessive and suggested an award of $40,000 to $50,000, despite their own partial indemnity costs outline totaling over $172,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding that the best evidence of reasonable expectations is the opposing side's bill.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $120,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs for the entire action after successfully moving to dismiss the proposed class action for delay.

The plaintiffs argued the costs claimed were excessive and that previous steps had already been addressed by prior costs rulings.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' response to the motion did not warrant an elevated scale.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs for the delay motion and reimbursement for mediation disbursements, fixing costs at $125,000 all-inclusive.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to amend a previously issued judgment (and Statement of Claim) that recognized and enforced a U.S. District Court judgment.

The purpose of the amendment was to correct the name of the individual Defendant, Ray Rasouli, who uses several versions of his name.

The Defendant, appearing self-represented, acknowledged the accuracy of the proposed corrections and informed the court of a recent appeal filed against the U.S. judgment.

The court granted the motion to amend and advised the Defendant to keep the Plaintiffs' counsel updated on the U.S. litigation's progress, noting that future motions might be necessary if the U.S. judgment is altered on appeal.

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and associated legal fees and honoraria following an aircraft accident.

The class action arose from a November 9, 2018 incident where Fly Jamaica Flight OJ 256 made an emergency landing, resulting in substantial damage and passenger injuries.

After extensive negotiations, a $5,550,000.00 lump sum settlement was reached.

The court approved the settlement agreement, certified the action against newly added defendants for settlement purposes, approved class counsel's fees of 25% of the settlement amount plus disbursements, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for each representative plaintiff.

The court found the settlement to be within the range of reasonableness and the fees to be fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs successfully defended a motion by the defendant to amend the certified class definition.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $88,296.33.

The defendant argued the amount was too high and suggested $45,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs request slightly excessive due to unwarranted allegations of abuse of process, which unnecessarily protracted the matter.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 20% and awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, payable within 30 days.

This case conference addressed the content and costs of the notice to be sent to class members following certification of a class action against an insurer.

The defendant insurer objected to the proposed notice content, which encouraged class members to submit claims, arguing it was improper advocacy.

The insurer also challenged the scope of notice distribution (to brokers and on its website) and sought to avoid notice costs.

The court approved the plaintiff's proposed notice content, finding it consistent with the insurer's own position on claim submission and the purpose of class notice.

The court denied the request for the insurer to post the notice on its website but ordered the insurer to provide policyholder and broker contact information.

The court further ordered that the costs of disseminating the notice, including administrator fees, be shared equally between the class and the insurer, citing the insurer's blanket denial of coverage as a factor.

In a securities class action, the plaintiff sought multiple orders in advance of a settlement approval motion.

The plaintiff requested leave to proceed against Tetra Tech, Inc. under the Securities Act, leave to discontinue common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against Tetra Tech, and certification of the action as a class proceeding against Tetra Tech for settlement purposes.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought approval to discontinue the action against the Underwriter Defendants based on a Standstill and Tolling Agreement.

The court granted all requested orders, finding that the criteria for leave and certification were met and that the discontinuance against the Underwriter Defendants would not prejudice the class.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against Binance for selling crypto derivatives products without filing a prospectus, contrary to the Securities Act.

Binance brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong, relying on an arbitration agreement in its online terms of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement void ab initio as contrary to public policy and unconscionable, given the disproportionate cost of arbitration in Hong Kong compared to the average investor's claim and the inequality of bargaining power in the standard form 'click' contract.

The plaintiffs, Home Coffee Solutions Ltd. and 2079162 Ontario Ltd., sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, their former business associates, alleging appropriation of work product, copying product descriptions, customer scooping, breach of fiduciary duties, and irreparable harm in a competing "home coffee solutions" e-commerce business.

The court, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored them.

The court noted the lack of non-competition/non-solicitation agreements and the absence of evidence of actual or imminent misuse of confidential customer data, dismissing the motion for an injunction.

The applicants sought to strike down sections 2(1), 24(1), and 313(1) of the Canada Elections Act, arguing they infringed sections 3 (right to vote) and 15(1) (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The challenge contended that Canada's single member plurality (SMP) electoral system resulted in disproportionate translation of votes to seats and underrepresentation of small national parties, women, and racial minorities.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the SMP system is constitutionally valid, does not violate Charter rights, and that the Constitution does not mandate proportional representation.

The court emphasized that voting rights focus on electoral process, not specific outcomes, and that political affiliation is not an analogous ground for discrimination under section 15.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses delays in the discovery process across several consolidated actions.

The primary issue identified was Mr. Behzad Pilehvar's failure to produce all relevant documents, including approximately 11,000 emails and text messages.

The court ordered Mr. Pilehvar to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents by December 19, 2023.

The endorsement also noted Mr. Pilehvar's counsel's contemplation of bringing a motion to remove himself from the record, which would impact scheduled discoveries and a planned mediation session in early spring 2024.

The court provided directions for scheduling future motions and case conferences.

In a dental malpractice action, the plaintiffs sought to have two experts accompany their counsel at the examination for discovery of the defendant dentist, and requested a ruling that these experts could still testify at trial.

The court permitted the plaintiffs' counsel to be accompanied by a specialist expert, but not a general dentist, to assist with highly technical subject matter.

However, the court declined to rule that the specialist could still testify at trial, warning that acting as part of the advocacy team at discovery would likely compromise the expert's objectivity and non-partisanship required for trial testimony.

The plaintiffs in a proposed consumer class action regarding alleged engine defects in Ford vehicles sought approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Woodsford.

The court found the agreement necessary to facilitate access to justice, noting the high costs of class proceedings and expert evidence.

The agreement provided Woodsford with a 10% return on recovery, which the court found reasonable and on par with the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The motion was granted, and the funding agreement was approved.