Eliezer Karp

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $6.1 million in settlement funds held in the defendant's solicitor's trust account.

The funds were allegedly derived from a fraudulent investment scheme involving the defendant corporation, which was controlled by individuals connected to a Ponzi scheme operated by Arash Missaghi.

The plaintiffs alleged they were induced to invest substantial sums through misrepresentation and fraud.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of fraud, that assets were in the jurisdiction, that there was a risk of dissipation, and that irreparable harm would result if the funds were distributed.

The court also allowed the defendant to withdraw $250,000 from the frozen funds for legal expenses.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to reconsider its earlier decision denying specific performance of a land sale agreement, and refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his pleading to claim damages after trial.

The court found that the uniqueness of the property to a third party in a related case was irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim, and that the plaintiff's strategic choice to seek only specific performance precluded a late amendment.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The decision addresses motions by Stephen Moranis to set aside a 2013 settlement and to pursue a new, nearly identical action against the Toronto Real Estate Board and others.

The court finds that Moranis’s attempts to re-litigate settled and dismissed claims constitute an abuse of process.

The court dismisses both the motion to set aside the settlement and the new action, emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation and compliance with court-ordered timetables.

The plaintiff, MM Fund, sought to dismiss its proposed securities class action against Excelsior Mining Corp. and its directors with prejudice and without costs.

The action, initially filed in British Columbia and then Ontario to preserve limitation periods, alleged misrepresentation in Excelsior's prospectus.

Citing prolonged procedural disputes, increased costs, and the absence of a substitute plaintiff, the plaintiff deemed the action no longer economically justified.

The court approved the dismissal, finding it warranted given the circumstances and the plaintiff's desire to cease pursuit.

The plaintiffs, vulnerable seniors, alleged predatory lending practices, misrepresentations, and inadequate legal representation led to a large, unconscionable mortgage on their debt-free home.

Several defendants, including Canada Choice Investments Inc. (CCI), Anas Ayyoub, Blossom Rabinowitz, and Edmond Ohayon, brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' claims against them, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed or that claims were scandalous/irrelevant.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were adequately pleaded, met the high threshold for surviving a motion to strike, and that the interests of justice strongly supported allowing the action to proceed to trial.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted to TD Bank on a loan and guarantees.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred by allowing a non-party to testify in a mini-trial, making findings of fact relevant to a third-party claim, and granting summary judgment before the third-party claim was determined.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of enhanced powers under Rule 20.04(2.2) or in granting summary judgment, as the third-party claim was separate and the appellants had opportunities to join it.

The appellant, Money Gate Corporation, appealed the dismissal of its motion seeking distribution of proceeds from a property sale, asserting an unregistered assignment of a second mortgage.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the source of funds for the alleged assignment, concluding no enforceable assignment was acquired.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision to dismiss the motion or in the discretionary costs order, noting the appellant's failure to file a cost outline.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property, arguing the defendant vendor repudiated the agreement.

The defendant denied a valid agreement and specific performance, and counterclaimed for a forfeited deposit.

The plaintiff also brought a separate action for repayment of a mortgage provided to the defendant.

The court found a valid APS existed and that the defendant anticipatorily breached it.

However, specific performance was denied because the property was not unique, the transaction circumstances were not unique, damages were deemed an adequate remedy, and the parties' conduct did not favour equitable relief.

The plaintiff's claim for specific performance and the defendant's counterclaim were both dismissed.

The plaintiff's mortgage claim was granted for the principal amount of $600,000, but the 12% interest rate provision was found invalid under section 8 of the Interest Act.

Money Gate Corporation (MGC) brought a motion for an extension of time to file its notice of appeal and a declaration that it had an appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), or alternatively for leave to appeal under s. 193(e).

The underlying matter involved a receivership where a motion judge had dismissed MGC's claim for payment from the proceeds of a property sale, finding no valid assignment of a second mortgage and that MGC was not the registered owner.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time, finding MGC's grounds of appeal not frivolous and no real prejudice to the responding parties.

Crucially, the court declared that MGC had an appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the BIA, concluding that the motion judge's order finally determined MGC's economic interests in the property proceeds, distinguishing it from a mere priorities dispute.

The appellant, Mikhail Khanine, appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law dispute due to wilful non-compliance with multiple court orders, including a consent order for financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings is an extraordinary remedy but justified in cases of egregious and exceptional wilful non-compliance with disclosure obligations, especially given the appellant's history of non-compliance and evasive tactics.

The court also addressed costs, awarding partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Victoria Sanders, sought costs of $75,740.16 after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction against Canada's Choice Investments Inc. (CCI) to restrain mortgage enforcement.

CCI argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, which is typical for interlocutory injunctions as there has been no final determination of rights.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, agreed with CCI, ordering that the costs of the motion be "in the cause" to be determined by the trial judge, citing the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions and the potential for material to be used later in the litigation.

The applicant wife sought an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds paid into court.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that an interim sale would prejudice his substantive rights under the Family Law Act or that the motion was malicious, vexatious, or oppressive.

The court found that the sale would not prejudice the husband's substantive rights, as his financial interests would be protected by payment into court, and a potential vesting order was too remote.

The court also determined the motion was not vexatious or malicious, noting the wife had sought the sale since 2019 and that it moved the parties closer to resolution.

The motion for sale was granted, with specific terms for listing and sale.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment granting specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found no reprehensible or outrageous conduct by the defendant to justify elevated costs.

The plaintiff was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $18,416.24.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order for specific performance arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The plaintiff sought compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and increased mortgage rates incurred due to the breach.

The court granted the motion in part, awarding the plaintiff legal fees, moving costs, ongoing storage costs, and the difference in mortgage rates, to be deducted from the purchase price on closing.

The claim for rent was denied as it was offset by the savings from not paying a mortgage.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment and specific performance for an aborted real estate transaction.

The Defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by refusing to close, initially citing spousal objection, which was later resolved by a court order.

The court found the Defendant in anticipatory breach and the Plaintiff to be the innocent party.

The central issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or damages.

Applying the "uniqueness" test from Semelhago, the court found the property unique, considering market conditions and the unavailability of comparable properties within the Plaintiff's price range.

The Plaintiff was deemed justified in not mitigating damages, especially given the Defendant's retention of the deposit.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff, ordering specific performance of the agreement.

This decision concerns a carriage motion between two proposed securities class actions, Kennedy v. Akumin Inc. and Longair v. Akumin Inc., brought under the amended Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court applied the new s. 13.1 of the CPA, which mandates a focus on efficiency and likelihood of success in advancing class members' claims.

The Longair action proposed a broader class period, alleged more categories of misrepresentation, and named additional defendants, including the company's auditor.

The court found that the Longair action better advanced the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification by encompassing more viable claims and defendants, despite some reservations about the claim against the auditor.

Carriage was granted to the Longair action, and the Kennedy action was stayed.

The applicant sought partition and sale of a property that was the primary residence of her late mother, forming part of the mother's estate.

The respondent, the estate's executrix and trustee, resided in the property rent-free, refusing to sell it despite a will provision requiring sale within two years of death.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant lacked standing under the Partition Act as she only had a contingent interest in the estate's residue, not immediate possession of the property.

The court clarified that the Estates Administration Act does not automatically vest property in beneficiaries if the will grants the trustee discretion over sale, and the will's specific direction for sale after two years did not grant immediate possession of the property itself, only the sale proceeds.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant seeking relief under the Trustee Act for removal and replacement of the trustee.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing a security interest over corporate shares that the plaintiff, Avinoam Rabinowitz, had purchased from the defendant, James Westbrook.

Rabinowitz defaulted on the first instalment of the purchase price and claimed equitable set-off due to alleged damages from the share purchase transaction, asserting causes of action including breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and oppression.

The court granted the injunction on the condition that the plaintiffs deposit $650,000 cash or an irrevocable letter of credit with the Accountant of the Court as alternative security.

The judge found that while the plaintiffs' claims on the merits were weak and their conduct lacked "clean hands," the risk of business loss constituted irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored protecting the defendants' security interest through alternative collateral.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.