Eric Thomas Leinveer

This endorsement addresses a motion in a certified class action regarding the scope of discovery.

The defendant, Western Union, sought to compel the representative plaintiff to answer two refused questions: (a) to produce facts and evidence from class members in the possession of class counsel, and (b) to advise whether plaintiffs’ counsel had spoken to any collectors or brokers.

The court found both questions improper, as they would effectively grant the defendant discovery of all class members and class counsel, contrary to the principles of class proceedings and privilege.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim without leave to amend.

The respondent sought dismissal of the appeal under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as frivolous and vexatious, finding that the appeal materials reflected re-litigation, rehashing of complaints, and spurious allegations, lacking any prospect of success, and continuing a pattern of vexatious litigation.

The defendant, Springer Nature, brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike the statement of claim filed by the self-represented plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, without leave to amend, on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff sought a court order requiring the defendant, a leading academic journal, to retract a 1997 paper he believed was founded on fraudulent research, which caused him "extreme annoyance" and a "mental tort," leading to his expulsion from his Ph.D. program.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's complaint did not disclose a recognized cause of action, as academic controversies are not justiciable in this context, and his "annoyance" or "mental tort" did not constitute a legally recognized injury in tort law.

Furthermore, the alleged injury was too remote and not foreseeable under the objective "ordinary person" standard for mental harm.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging the improper charging of duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court, applying the five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.

Consequently, the action was certified as a class proceeding.

The Superior Court of Justice approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major Canadian banks.

The actions allege that the banks charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on single dishonoured pre-authorized debits.

The court, applying Section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found the agreements to be fair and reasonable, noting the staged success fee was comparable to or more advantageous than the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The court confirmed the agreements preserved plaintiff control over litigation, ensured the funder's financial capacity for adverse costs, and included appropriate confidentiality and deemed undertaking provisions.

The defendants took no position on the motions.

The defendant, Spring Nature, sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, sued Spring Nature over alleged fatal errors in a published scientific article, seeking its retraction and compensation.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01, finding that the claim, while potentially lacking a recognized cause of action, did not meet the high threshold for dismissal as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under this attenuated rule.

The court suggested that a Rule 21 motion to strike for failure to disclose a cause of action would be the more appropriate procedural route.

The appellant, Skyline Real Estate Acquisitions (III) Inc., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its application for the return of a $3.25 million deposit.

Skyline had refused to close on an agreement to purchase two shopping plazas, alleging the vendor (Peterborough Retail Portfolio LP) failed to satisfy conditions related to key tenant tenancies (Walmart and Dollarama).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the vendor had made commercially reasonable efforts and provided substantial assurances, while the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith by insisting on strict technical compliance to exit a contract it no longer desired.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs.