Gillian Blythe Dingle

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 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 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 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 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 appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for delay.

The action against the respondents was commenced in 2004 alleging wrongful disclosure of confidential financial information by an employee of Canada Permanent Trust Company to the RCMP during a criminal investigation.

By 2016, the action had not progressed beyond the pleading stage despite being subject to a common timetable with another related action (the RCMP Action).

The motion judge found the delay inexcusable, attributing it to the appellant's decision to prioritize the RCMP Action over the Canada Permanent Action.

The motion judge also found that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the death of a key witness.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge's analysis was well-supported by evidence and that the appellant's failure to advance the action over 12 years, despite court orders for joint case management, constituted inexcusable delay.

The plaintiffs, Joseph and Anna Iacolucci, brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal order dated November 20, 2013, and to set a fresh timetable for their action against TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. and Carrie Anderson.

The action, commenced in 2007, alleged breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty related to investment losses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the inordinate delay of over six years, that the failure to meet the set-down deadline was not due to inadvertence, that the motion to set aside the dismissal was not brought promptly, and that the defendants suffered actual prejudice due to lost documents and faded memories.

The court emphasized the need to enforce timelines and the unfairness to the defendants in resurrecting the action after such significant delay and abandonment.

An appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision was settled prior to judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with no costs awarded to either party.

The plaintiffs, having successfully appealed the dismissal of their class action as time-barred and obtained certification and leave to proceed, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis for the certification and leave motions.

The defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing an "indulgence" (nunc pro tunc order), costs for required steps, limitation period issues, expert reports, divided success, and comparable cases.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of the case, the public interest in access to justice for complex class actions, and the substantial success achieved by the plaintiffs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the full amount of costs claimed, $2,679,277.82, payable by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

The plaintiff, LBP Holdings Ltd., brought a motion in a proposed securities class action to add the defendant's underwriters (Cormark Securities Inc. and Dundee Securities Limited) as party defendants following the original defendant's bankruptcy.

The plaintiff sought to assert five claims: primary market statutory, secondary market statutory, common law negligence, common law negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted leave to add the underwriters for the common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding them tenable.

However, the primary market statutory claim was time-barred, and the secondary market statutory claim was untenable as underwriters were not considered "experts" under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The unjust enrichment claim was also dismissed as legally untenable due to a valid contractual basis for fees and the principle against shareholder derivative actions for corporate wrongs.