Geoffrey Ernest John Grove

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding the calculation of a net profits interest in a mining property.

The respondent argued the arbitration agreement precluded appeals, but the court found no such exclusion.

However, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement involved questions of mixed fact and law, and the applicant failed to identify any extricable errors of law.

The defendant Dream Office Real Estate Investment Trust ("Dream REIT") moved to strike the plaintiff Europro (Kitchener) Limited Partnership's claim against it, arguing improper lumping of defendants and failure to disclose reasonable causes of action for breach of contract, negligent/intentional misrepresentation, negligence, or unjust enrichment.

Europro conceded the breach of contract claim but maintained the others.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims for misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment were sufficiently pleaded, and that grouping the Dream defendants was not problematic in this context.

The respondents admitted to engaging in the business of trading and advising in securities without registration, in contravention of subsections 25(1) and 25(3) of the Securities Act.

The individual respondent also engaged in dishonest conduct by impersonating clients when dealing with registrants.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest despite the individual's history of regulatory misconduct, given his cooperation, remorse, and the efficiency of resolving the matter without a contested hearing.

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

The plaintiff's action was administratively dismissed for delay twice.

The defendant consented to setting aside the first dismissal but refused for the second.

The master dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the second dismissal, finding the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that the master erred in requiring affirmative evidence to rebut presumed prejudice.

The defendant's own conduct, including consenting to the first dismissal and engaging in settlement discussions, rebutted any presumption of prejudice, and the finality principle was not engaged because the plaintiff moved promptly.

In this proposed securities class action arising from the collapse of a public issuer, the plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of claims on behalf of purchasers of notes and shares in the primary and secondary markets.

Subject to one contested issue concerning former noteholders who had assigned their notes during the class period, the motions were unopposed or proceeded on consent.

The court granted leave and certified the action, holding that the substantive dispute over whether assigned noteholder claims vested in transferees under New York law should be postponed until after certification.

The court found it procedurally preferable and fair to defer that merits issue until after a defence was delivered, thereby avoiding interlocutory delay in a large and complex class proceeding.

The defendant moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiff corporation was resident outside Ontario and lacked assets within the jurisdiction.

The plaintiff argued that it possessed sufficient assets in Michigan and that reciprocal enforcement legislation would permit enforcement of any costs award there, and also relied on the defendant’s delay in bringing the motion.

The court held that the defendant met the threshold for ordering security because the plaintiff was a non-resident corporation with insufficient Ontario assets and had failed to provide convincing evidence of sufficient exigible assets in Michigan.

While the defendant had delayed bringing the motion for several years, the circumstances justified ordering security only for costs incurred after the motion rather than the full estimated costs of the action.

The plaintiff was ordered to post staged security totalling $35,000.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge and finding the appeal had no merit.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.