Eric S. Block

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) brought a motion under Rule 5.05 to sever certain allegations advanced by Tarion Warranty Corporation (Tarion) into two separate actions.

Tarion, along with Carlo and Dino Taurasi, opposed the motion.

TD argued that Tarion's negligence claim (related to a cheque kiting scheme) and its claim to set aside a settlement agreement as a fraudulent conveyance were discrete and temporally separate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no undue complexity, delay, or prejudice, and that the claims arose from the same series of transactions with significant factual overlap, promoting the convenient administration of justice and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiff, Dr. Darryl Gebien, sought court approval for a Third-Party Funding Agreement with Omni Bridgeway Ltd. for a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical companies regarding the opioid crisis.

Several defendants objected to specific provisions of the agreement, including those related to amendments, assignments, attornment, costs enforcement, termination procedures, accrued costs, and confidentiality.

The court found that while the agreement generally met the requirements for approval, several of the defendants' objections, particularly concerning comprehensive attornment by Omni Bridgeway Ltd. and the broad confidentiality provisions, were "genuinely meaningful" and required resolution.

The motion for approval was adjourned to allow the parties to address these issues, with the court emphasizing that it is not its role to draft the agreement.

This application concerned the interpretation of a dispute resolution clause in a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) regarding the calculation of a post-closing working capital adjustment.

The core issue was whether the purchaser, Rester Ontario Investments Inc., was permitted to provide narrative written submissions to an independent accountant in response to the vendor's, Elad Canada Operations Inc., dispute notice.

The court determined that the interpretation of the SPA was a matter for the court, not the independent accountant.

It ruled that narrative submissions were permissible, provided they did not alter the original calculations, and set page limits for both Rester's submissions and Elad's reply.

The motion concerned the terms of a judicially supervised sale of a limited partnership or its underlying real estate asset, following the respondent's failure to complete a purchase of the applicant's interest as previously ordered by the court.

Key contentious issues included whether the sale should be limited to arm's-length purchasers, the composition and disclosure of a "Floor Amount" (minimum sale price), the applicant's right to a credit bid, the consequences if the Floor Amount was not met, and the appropriate prejudgment interest rate.

The court ruled that both parties could participate in the bidding, the Floor Amount should not include the respondent's capital contributions but should include the applicant's post-default development costs, the Floor Amount should not be disclosed to bidders, and prejudgment interest should be 12% due to the respondent's conduct.

The court also granted a temporary sealing order for the file and reasons until the sale was completed.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages, alleging they were falsely implicated in a state-sponsored doping scheme and wrongfully excluded from the 2016 Rio Olympic Games.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) had exclusive jurisdiction and that the action was an abuse of process.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute fell within the broad arbitration clauses of the Olympic Charter and the athletes' entry forms.

The court also held that the action was an abuse of process as the plaintiffs were attempting to re-litigate a dispute they had already brought before the CAS.

A corn grower who neither purchased nor planted genetically modified corn seed brought a proposed class action against the seed manufacturer for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the Competition Act.

The manufacturer had commercialized the seed in North America before obtaining approval in China.

The seed's traits commingled with all North American corn, causing China to ban all North American corn imports, resulting in a market glut and price collapse.

The motion judge struck all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the negligence claim for premature commercialization while upholding dismissal of the misrepresentation and Competition Act claims.

The applicant, a former CEO of Aphria Inc., sought damages for the company's refusal to honor his stock options and, in the alternative, relief from forfeiture.

The court found that the stock options had expired according to the terms of the Aphria Incentive Stock Option Plan, which was incorporated by reference into the applicant's agreements.

Furthermore, the applicant was found to have breached a non-competition agreement by leasing land to a medical marijuana producer during the restricted term.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application, denying both the claim for damages and the request for equitable relief from forfeiture due to the applicant's breach of the non-competition agreement.

The defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim, Canopy Growth Corporation and Canopy Hemp Corporation ("Canopy"), brought a motion seeking preliminary relief in relation to pending summary judgment motions.

Canopy sought an order adjourning the summary judgment motions, establishing a discovery plan, ordering specific document production, and examinations of non-parties.

The plaintiff and defendants by counterclaim opposed the motion.

The court, applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, found that the summary judgment motions were not simple questions of law and contractual interpretation and that Canopy required some evidence to respond fairly.

The court ordered specific document production from the defendants by counterclaim and examinations of non-parties Vic Neufeld and John Cervini under Rule 39.03, but declined to order a full discovery plan or affidavits of documents.

The court also clarified its lack of jurisdiction to adjourn a judge's summary judgment motion or vary a judge's timetable.

The plaintiff, Jooli Park, brought a motion for certification of a class action against Samyang Foods Co. for settlement purposes, approval of a settlement agreement with Samyang, dismissal of the action against the non-settling defendants (Nongshim, Ottogi, Korea Yakult, and Paldo), approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, payment of an honorarium to Park, and cy-près distribution of remaining settlement funds.

The court granted all requested relief except for the honorarium to Park, finding that her contributions were not exceptional enough to warrant it.

The settlement with Samyang was approved, and the action against the non-settling defendants was dismissed without costs, considering the increased litigation risks after an unsuccessful jury trial in a related US class action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval for a class action settlement and allocation plan concerning a Hepatitis A contamination recall of frozen fruit.

The court approved the $3,000,000 settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, lack of significant objections, and risks of continued litigation.

The plan allocated funds across four categories: purchasers, immunized members, bodily injury members, and family members/health insurers.

The plaintiffs, three Russian cyclists, sued the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Richard McLaren for damages related to their exclusion from the 2016 Olympic Games.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss or permanently stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process, and to strike the statement of claim against McLaren.

The court found that resolving the jurisdictional issues would require extensive fact-finding, including assessing conflicting expert opinions and credibility, which exceeds the scope of a Rule 21 motion.

Consequently, the Rule 21.01(3) motions were ordered to be reconstituted as Rule 20 summary judgment motions or a trial of issues, and McLaren's Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion was deferred.

The plaintiff, a commercial corn grower, brought a proposed class action against the defendants, manufacturers of genetically modified corn seeds (Agrisure), alleging negligence and breach of the Competition Act.

The plaintiff claimed that North American corn prices fell due to China's rejection of corn shipments containing unapproved Agrisure, causing economic loss to non-Agrisure farmers.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing no duty of care existed for pure economic loss.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the claim was framed in misrepresentation, the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' alleged undertaking not to introduce Agrisure without global approvals was unreasonable, as commingling was inevitable and preventing it would require withholding the product from the domestic market, which had regulatory approval.

The court also noted the risk of indeterminate liability and the illogical elevation of foreign approvals over domestic ones.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two anaesthetists after experiencing intra-operative awareness during a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Due to the plaintiff's malignant hyperthermia, the defendants used Total Intravenous Anaesthesia (TIVA) rather than inhaled anaesthetic gases.

The court found that the supervising anaesthetist met the standard of care.

However, the court found that the primary anaesthetist breached the standard of care by administering an inadequate infusion rate of Propofol, particularly after significantly reducing the nitrous oxide levels.

The court concluded that this breach caused the plaintiff's intra-operative awareness.

The defendant, TK Holdings Inc., moved to strike paragraphs from the statements of claim in five proposed products liability class actions.

The impugned paragraphs contained apologies made by Takata executives in Japan and the District of Columbia, which the defendant argued were inadmissible under Ontario's Apology Act, 2009.

The plaintiffs contended that the Act did not apply extraterritorially and that a contextual analysis was required to distinguish apologies from admissible admissions.

The court granted the motion, holding that pleading evidence, such as apologies or admissions, rather than material facts, was improper under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, the court determined that the Apology Act, being a statute about the law of evidence (procedural law), applied as the law of the forum, rendering evidence of apologies inadmissible for determining fault or liability.

Following the appointment of a receiver over corporate defendants’ books and records in a commercial dispute involving alleged fraud and breach of agreements, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $298,000, including substantial disbursements for forensic accounting services.

The defendants challenged the reasonableness of the fees and argued certain expert-related disbursements were not recoverable.

The court held that detailed cost outlines rather than docket production were sufficient, emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party under Rule 57.01(1), and confirmed that expert forensic accounting fees were recoverable.

Costs were fixed at $180,000 plus HST for fees and $67,566.14 for disbursements, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiff moved for the appointment of a receiver over the books and records of several corporate defendants following loans exceeding USD $111 million for casino and gaming ventures in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.

The defendants failed to provide required financial reporting, access to records, and audited statements despite contractual obligations and prior court orders.

Evidence indicated possible fraudulent reporting, significant discrepancies in financial information, and unexplained diversion of approximately $50 million to related entities.

The court held that the defendants had repeatedly obstructed access to records and that the circumstances justified the equitable appointment of a receiver to secure and review corporate books and records.

The motion was granted.

Following certification of a securities class action, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the leave and certification motions.

The moving parties sought more than $1.18 million in fees and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and historical benchmarking when assessing certification-motion costs under Rule 57.01(1).

After adjusting excessive hourly rates and disbursements, and considering historical averages for comparable certification motions, the court fixed costs at $467,234 payable forthwith, with an additional $100,000 in disbursements payable in the cause.