3 total
Application for declaration that sealing order did not apply to inadvertently disclosed public record dismissed.
The applicant, a plaintiff in a proposed class action in British Columbia, sought a declaration that a sealing order issued in a related Ontario proceeding did not apply to an affidavit he had obtained from the public court record before the sealing order was formalized.
The respondents had inadvertently included confidential information in a publicly filed motion record.
The court dismissed the application, holding that the sealing order applied to the inadvertently disclosed information and that confidentiality could be restored since the applicant had not yet used or relied upon the information.
The court approved the notice plan and appointed the settlement administrator for a $6.8 million securities class action settlement.
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 dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to compel statements of defence and insurance disclosure prior to OSA leave.
In this putative securities class action arising from alleged misconduct by the former CEO of Endeavour Mining, the plaintiffs moved for an order requiring defendants to deliver statements of defence and produce insurance information by November 21, 2025.
The defendants opposed both requests, arguing that no statement of defence is required before leave to proceed is granted under the Securities Act, and that insurance information disclosure is premature.
The court dismissed both aspects of the motion, finding that prior to OSA leave being granted, the statutory claim is a nullity and therefore no defence is required, and that insurance disclosure is premature absent settlement discussions or leave being granted.