Eli Bordman

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 Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Garlicky Mediterranean Grill Inc., finding no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s email correspondence did not amount to the exercise of an option to renew the lease.

The court held that the findings below were entitled to deference and awarded costs to the respondent.

This decision concerns cross-motions for production in a complex commercial dispute involving Paragon Protection Ltd., Tamstu-Harjon Holdings of Canada Limited, and related parties.

The central issue was the scope of privilege over various documents, including those arising from related estate litigation and legal advice received over several decades.

The court clarified the law on waiver of privilege, settlement privilege, and the production of documents, granting and denying relief in part to both sides.

The plaintiff, Ojohome Canada Ltd. o/a Houseful, sought an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore its access to live feed data from the Toronto Region MLS service provided by TRREB.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory order and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The decision discusses the contractual and regulatory context of MLS data access and the requirements for injunctive relief.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the conservation authority's refusal of a permit application for a residential dwelling.

The parties indicated they would seek Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day video hearing to commence on May 26, 2025.

The court-appointed Liquidator of two companies sought advice and direction regarding the application of issue estoppel to claims by a shareholder, Christos Kommatas, and the payment of funds to another shareholder, George Vastis.

The core dispute involved whether Kommatas was precluded from seeking an order for the Liquidator to conduct a claims process as part of the liquidation, an issue previously raised and denied at trial.

The court found that Kommatas was indeed precluded by issue estoppel, as this specific issue was distinctly put before and decided against Kommatas in the prior trial.

The court also authorized the payment of $250,000 to Vastis as previously ordered.

The appellants abandoned their appeal of an order appointing a liquidator to wind up their business.

The respondents sought $32,764.35 in costs for work done prior to the abandonment, despite not having filed a response to the appeal.

The court applied Rule 61.14(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that an abandoned appeal shall be without costs if no response was filed.

Noting that the respondents had already received costs for a related stay motion and failed to provide detailed time records distinguishing the work, the court declined to deviate from the general rule and awarded no costs.

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a proposed class action against Capital One and Amazon Web following a data breach.

The motion judge had struck the appellants' pleadings without leave to amend and dismissed their certification motion, finding the case 'doomed to fail'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the pleadings failed to disclose viable causes of action for data misuse (intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence/trust/fiduciary duty) and data breach (negligence, statutory claims).

The Court also upheld the decision to deny leave to amend the pleadings, citing repeated opportunities and the defective nature of the claims.

The appellants' motion for an extension of time to appeal costs was also dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) to strike an application for certiorari and prohibition brought by Gordon Baron and Lifestyles by Barons Inc. (collectively, "Baron").

Baron had been charged under the Conservation Authorities Act.

HRCA sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while Baron proposed a significantly lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded HRCA $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding Baron's underlying application meritless and noting inappropriate conduct, though not bad faith, on Baron's part.

The applicants, facing charges under the Conservation Authorities Act, brought an application for certiorari and prohibition after the trial justice recused himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Halton Region Conservation Authority brought a motion to strike the application.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion to strike, finding that there was no decision left to quash via certiorari following the recusal, and that an order of prohibition was unwarranted as issues of standing and jurisdiction should be dealt with by the trial court.

The respondents sought damages arising from an interim injunction obtained by the applicant, alleging it was an excessive overreach and caused them financial harm by preventing a property sale.

The court found that proper notice was provided for the initial injunction hearing, and it did not proceed on an *ex parte* basis.

While some facts were not disclosed by the applicant, the court determined these omissions were not material to the necessity of the injunction, which was granted to maintain the status quo and protect the public interest in remediating provincially significant wetlands.

The respondents had also consented to the injunction's continuance after the initial period.

As the respondents eventually remediated the property, the merits of the underlying application for a permanent injunction were never judicially determined.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for damages, exercising its discretion due to the respondents' inequitable conduct and the applicant's role as a public body acting in the public interest.

This endorsement addresses ongoing disagreements between counsel, leading to a civil case conference.

The parties agreed to orders for the respondents to produce a realtor's complete file and for cross-examinations to proceed with documents marked as exhibits pending privilege determination.

The court admonished counsel for their uncivil and uncooperative conduct, emphasizing that civil case conferences are not for resolving civility issues and that counsel have a strict obligation to act reasonably and collaboratively.

The court ordered that no further motions or civil case conferences could be brought without leave.

The Appellant appealed an Assessment Officer's report which found the Respondent's legal account proven and awarded costs.

The Respondent brought a preliminary motion to quash the appeal due to procedural defects and delay.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, accepting the Appellant's counsel's personal circumstances as justification for delay and applying a liberal construction of procedural rules.

However, the court dismissed the appeal on its merits, deferring to the Assessment Officer's credibility findings which favoured the Respondent, and finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence.

The court also amended the title of proceedings to include the Appellant's aliases and awarded costs to the Respondent.

The plaintiffs and defendants were equal shareholders in two closely held corporations that owned and operated gas stations and a driving range.

Following a breakdown in their relationship and a deadlock over succession planning and the division of corporate assets, both parties alleged oppressive conduct against the other.

The court found that both shareholders had engaged in conduct that unfairly disregarded the other's interests.

Given the irreparable breakdown of trust and the deadlock, the court ordered the winding up and liquidation of the companies by a court-appointed receiver.

The court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff's wife, finding she was not a shareholder or officer, but awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in compensation for his historical management of the companies.

The plaintiff, an experienced private lender, brought an action against a law clerk and two lawyers for negligence, fraud, and conspiracy arising from defaulted mortgage investments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked evidentiary support.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting her claims well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care for the professional negligence claims and offered no evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

The appellants sought to overturn a motion judge's decision to dismiss their action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The underlying action concerned a mortgage whose validity had been previously decided.

The Court of Appeal found the action, which included 40 causes of action in a 300-page statement of claim, to be plainly vexatious and an abuse of process, upholding the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.