Hardeep Dhaliwal

The appeal concerned whether post-closing transactions triggered accelerated earn-out payment obligations under a share purchase agreement.

The court deferred to the application judge’s contractual interpretation and factual findings, concluding no trigger event requiring immediate full earn-out payment had been established.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant repair shop brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's negligence claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was scandalous, frivolous, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff alleged the repair shop negligently failed to properly inspect and diagnose vehicle damage following a motor vehicle accident, improperly diagnosed necessary repairs, and failed to disclose known defects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded all elements of negligence and that the claim was viable and should proceed to trial.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the Insurance Act barred the claim.

The appellants sought certification of a proposed class action on behalf of approximately 15,000 Canadian major junior hockey players from 1975 to the present, alleging systemic abuse including physical and sexual assaults, bullying, harassment, and hazing.

The class action named 78 defendants across four major junior hockey leagues and sought to hold the leagues and teams liable for systemic negligence in failing to adopt and enforce effective abuse-prevention policies.

The motion judge denied certification, finding the action unmanageable due to its unprecedented scope and complexity, and that no viable litigation plan had been presented.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: that they had disclosed a viable cause of action, that common issues existed, and that the class action was the preferable procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellants had viable claims and the motion judge applied an overly stringent test to the common issues requirement, the action was unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure.

The court emphasized that the proposed class action was far broader and more complex than previous systemic negligence class actions, involving 78 defendants across 13 jurisdictions, events spanning 50 years, and complex conflicts-of-law issues.

The appellants' attempt to fundamentally alter their case on appeal by dropping 74 defendants was rejected as impermissible.

The appellants, owners of a dental clinic, appealed the dismissal of their action against a former independent contractor dentist who left to start his own practice.

The appellants alleged conversion, improper solicitation of patients and employees, appropriation of confidential information, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the dentists carried on independent practices, the departing dentist only contacted his own patients to fulfill professional obligations, and the patient information accessed was not confidential.

The court also rejected claims regarding breach of fiduciary duty and the contractual duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal considered whether a beach easement was expressly extinguished by an application to the Registrar of Land Titles.

The lower court had found the deletion was an error and ordered rectification.

The appellate court determined that the application judge erred in law by misinterpreting the application as lacking an express release, despite the dominant owner's clear intent and request to delete the easement.

The appeal was allowed, the rectification order set aside, and the original application dismissed, confirming the easement's extinguishment.

The parties appeared before the court to settle the terms of an Order approving a Section 7 Plan under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of a certification motion.

The court resolved three minor disputes regarding the form and content of the Order.

The court declined to immediately name Epiq as the Administrator, allowed class counsel to receive potential plaintiffs' contact information to facilitate notice, and agreed with the defendants that the Order should refer to a 'section 7 Plan' rather than an 'individual issues protocol'.

This decision concerns Phase 4 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The original proposed class action, brought by former and current major junior hockey players alleging abuse, was not certified.

The Section 7 Plan aims to transition the proposed class action into up to 60 individual joinder actions.

The court approved Version 4 of the Draft Section 7 Plan, which outlines procedures for notice, opt-in, commencement of actions, case management, and discovery.

A key contentious issue resolved in this phase concerned the staying of third-party claims until the completion of the main actions.

This decision is Phase 3 of a motion to settle a Section 7 Order under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court is finalizing the Draft Section 7 Plan, which facilitates the transition of a proposed class action, previously denied certification, into up to 60 individual joinder actions against various hockey leagues and teams.

The plan addresses notice dissemination, the approval of contingency fee agreements, the management of third-party claims by staying them under Rule 29.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and the potential for severance of actions.

The court also proposes a consensual settlement track for modest claims as an alternative to litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Rule 7 Order pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of their certification motion for a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in amateur hockey.

The court reviewed and settled the revised Draft Section 7 Plan, which transitions the proposed class action into up to 60 joinder actions against the defendant hockey teams and leagues.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-in procedures, and case management provisions, with minor revisions to protect player privacy and ensure efficient administration.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in the Canadian Hockey League, the plaintiffs brought a motion under section 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve a plan to transition the proceeding into multiple joinder actions.

The court reviewed the competing Section 7 Plans submitted by the plaintiffs and defendants and found both to be procedurally flawed and overreaching.

The court proposed its own Draft Section 7 Plan designed to facilitate the commencement of up to 60 joinder actions while respecting the court's jurisdictional limits and the parties' procedural rights.

The motion was adjourned to a second phase for the parties to revise and discuss the court's draft plan.

The plaintiffs (Securitas) brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL), and a Norwich Order against the defendants, alleging fraud related to sham alarm system accounts.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction against all defendants and the CPL against the Eagle Defendants, finding that Securitas had not established a strong prima facie case of fraud against the Eagle Defendants, nor sufficient evidence of assets or dissipation risk for the other defendants (Rahman and Philip).

However, the court granted a Norwich Order against Rahman and Philip for financial disclosure and, by consent, ordered the Eagle Defendants to provide similar financial information.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, brought a proposed class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues, and 60 individual teams, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability for widespread hazing, bullying, and abuse.

The out-of-province defendants brought a motion challenging the court's jurisdiction, which was dismissed as the court found they carried on business in Ontario.

The defendants also brought a Ragoonanan motion, which was granted because the representative plaintiffs only had personal causes of action against five of the 60 teams.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims failed the cause of action, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria, primarily because there was no basis for collective liability among the independent teams.

However, the court utilized sections 7, 12, and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act to permit the action to continue as individual joinder actions, ordering the plaintiffs to prepare an Individual Issues Protocol.