Garett M. Hunter

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.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement regarding trailing commissions paid by TD Asset Management Inc. to discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged improper payments and misrepresentations.

The court approved a $70.25 million settlement for the class, along with the proposed notice plan, distribution protocol, and appointment of an administrator.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, an interim payment to the litigation funder, release of the funder's security, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

This appeal addresses the role of "public correction" in secondary market misrepresentation class actions under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act.

The appellant sought leave to pursue a statutory remedy, which the motion judge denied by requiring a discrete and identifiable public correction that explicitly revealed the misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal, following its own decision in *Barrick OCA*, found that the motion judge applied an unduly onerous standard for public correction.

The Court clarified that public correction does not require "facial symmetry" with the misrepresentation and must be understood in context by the secondary market.

The appeal was allowed, and the leave motion remitted for redetermination.

The plaintiffs in a Quebec class action and the defendants brought motions to stay a parallel Ontario class action alleging securities misrepresentations.

The moving parties argued the Ontario action was duplicative and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario action was more comprehensive and not duplicative of the Quebec action when it was filed.

The court held that issues of preferability between parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are better addressed at the certification stage rather than through a pre-certification stay motion for abuse of process.

This decision addresses a carriage motion between two proposed class actions against Aphria Inc. and other defendants, both alleging misrepresentations in the secondary market and oppression remedy claims.

The "Mirzoian-Rogers Action" (LATAM Theory) proposed a narrower class based primarily on the LATAM Transaction, while the "Vecchio Action" (Nuuvera+LATAM Theory) proposed a broader class period and additional causes of action encompassing both the Nuuvera and LATAM Transactions.

The court granted carriage to the Vecchio Action, finding its broader case theory to be in the best interests of the class by providing greater access to justice for a larger group of claimants, despite criticisms regarding the pleading of partial corrective disclosures for the Nuuvera Transaction.

The court emphasized that a carriage motion is not the appropriate forum to definitively resolve complex legal issues like the full effect of corrective disclosures.

This is a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class action proceeding, specifically challenging the certification of oppression-based common issues.

The moving parties (Baffinland Iron Mines and three individual defendants) argued that previous decisions precluded class proceedings based on oppression claims due to the need for individual shareholder expectation assessments.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the original order.

The court held that the motions judge correctly applied appellate precedent that oppression claims do not necessarily require explicit evidence of each individual shareholder's expectations at the certification stage, provided common shareholder expectations are objectively reasonable and specifically pleaded.