Gillian Blythe Dingle

The applicants, shareholders of TD Bank, sought leave under section 334 of the Bank Act to bring a derivative action in Delaware on behalf of TD Bank's U.S. subsidiary regarding anti-money laundering failures.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Bank Act does not permit an Ontario court to grant leave for a derivative action to be commenced in a foreign jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, leave would not be granted because the proposed action did not appear to be in the best interests of the bank, given the board's reasonable business judgment and the potential prejudice to the bank in other ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs in three related proposed class actions sought leave to proceed under the Securities Act, certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes, and approval of a Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing.

The actions alleged misrepresentations by a cannabis company regarding its facility expansion.

The court found the certification criteria were met for settlement purposes, granted leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and approved the form and dissemination plan for the settlement notice.

On an uncertified proposed class proceeding arising from a pension fund’s loss on an FTX investment, the moving party sought leave to discontinue under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with agreed non-monetary disclosure commitments in the plan’s annual reporting and payment of class counsel fees and disbursements from the fund.

The court applied the discontinuance approval framework, including whether class interests would be prejudiced by abandonment of a viable claim and whether the result was a practical resolution in light of litigation risk.

The court found the class would not benefit from continued litigation on the record, accepted that the settlement terms were objectively reasonable, and held that non-monetary relief could constitute a positive settlement outcome.

The court also approved the reduced fee amount and disbursements as reasonable.

The plaintiff, Oslyn Lewis, brought an action against The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Canada Limited, Hertz Canada Vehicles Partnership, and TD Canada Trust after a rental car was seized with his belongings inside.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Hertz, finding that the parties had previously settled the dispute and Lewis had signed a release covering all claims.

The court found no evidence of breach of settlement or prejudice to the plaintiff, and that all claims—including those about being banned and alleged false statements to TD—were covered by the release.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

The plaintiff in a complex family trust dispute brought motions on the eve of trial for further documentary production, further examinations for discovery, and leave to amend her Statement of Claim.

The motions sought to introduce new allegations that the defendants covered up and settled claims of sexual misconduct against the family patriarch, Frank Stronach.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no evidence that the requested documents existed, that the new allegations were irrelevant to the pleaded claims of corporate mismanagement, and that amending the pleadings three weeks before a scheduled seven-week trial would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify a class proceeding concerning the alleged improper payment of trailing commissions to discount brokers from CIBC mutual funds.

The court applied the five criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, adopting previous judicial analyses for the first four criteria.

The court found the representative plaintiff capable and the proposed litigation and notice plans appropriate, granting the certification order.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.

The court addressed two pretrial motions: one seeking to stay a counterclaim based on abuse of process due to delayed disclosure of a cooperation agreement, and another seeking leave for third-party discovery.

The motion to stay was dismissed, as the immediate disclosure rule for settlement agreements was found not to apply to agreements with non-parties.

The motion for third-party discovery was granted, with the court finding the non-party's evidence critical and that the cooperation agreement constituted a constructive refusal to provide information, making a pretrial examination necessary for trial fairness.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce an "Outline of Terms of Settlement" reached during mediation, arguing it constituted a binding agreement.

The defendants contended that the Outline was not intended to be enforceable and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the Outline did not objectively reflect a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and that numerous material issues, including debt reallocation, minority shareholder rights, and tax implications of asset transfers, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that it cannot create a contract for parties where essential terms are missing.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The applicant, Manitou Gold Inc., sought an interim order under section 182(5) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act for advice and directions to hold a special meeting of shareholders to approve a plan of arrangement with Alamos Gold Inc. The court assessed whether the applicant was acting in good faith and satisfied statutory requirements, noting that a detailed examination of the information circular or a full fairness analysis was not required at this interim stage.

The relief sought was unopposed.

The court granted the interim order, finding the proposed steps appropriate for shareholder notice and voting.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated August 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs of the motion were awarded to the moving parties in the amount of $7,000 inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

The defendants (Underwriters) brought a motion to dismiss the class proceeding for delay under section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act.

As a preliminary issue, the court admitted emails between counsel, finding that any common interest privilege was waived by the defendants bringing the delay motion.

On the main issue, the court declined to follow previous strict interpretations of section 29.1.

The court held that its directions at an initial case conference, which required the plaintiffs to take specific steps as soon as practicable, effectively established a timetable under section 29.1(c).

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The defendants in two related actions sought orders to compel the plaintiffs, Andrew Stronach and Selena Stronach, to undergo medical examinations to assess their mental capacities for the purpose of determining if litigation guardians were required.

The court dismissed the motion against Selena Stronach, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

The motion against Andrew Stronach was dismissed without prejudice, as the court found it premature and suggested other discovery avenues should be pursued first.

The court also declined to order production of video recordings of Andrew's examination for discovery.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out portions of their statements of defence.

The impugned pleadings referred to documents and communications from a judicial mediation, which the motion judge found were prima facie protected by settlement privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court affirmed that the respondents had not waived settlement privilege and that the justice of the case did not require an exception to allow the appellants to plead the privileged information to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a $125 million settlement in a class action against a major bank for secondary market misrepresentation related to subprime mortgage investments.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of class counsel fees of $37.5 million, representing a 30% contingency fee.

The court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable, noting the significant litigation risks the plaintiffs faced, including a due diligence defence and challenges to damages calculations.

The court also approved the requested counsel fees, emphasizing the substantial risk undertaken by class counsel over 14 years of litigation and the excellent result achieved for the class.