Helen Daley

The representative plaintiff in a securities class action sought court approval of an $11 million settlement agreement, a plan of distribution, and class counsel fees.

The action alleged that the defendants misrepresented the development costs of a mining project.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks, including proving liability and overcoming statutory liability caps under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the plan of distribution, the appointment of the claims administrator, and class counsel's fee request of $2.75 million (25% of the settlement) plus disbursements, finding them fair and reasonable given the results achieved and risks assumed.

The applicant regulator sought declarations that the Law Society Act licensing requirements for paralegals apply to provincial Crown employees providing legal services, including those advising or representing workers in employer reprisal matters under s. 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The union argued that the Crown was immune from the Act and alternatively that a by-law exemption applicable to legal services under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act extended to these matters.

The court held that although the statute does not expressly bind the Crown, it does so by necessary implication because the Act’s purpose is to protect the public through licensing of legal service providers.

Allowing Crown employees to provide legal services without licensing would frustrate that purpose and produce an absurd regulatory gap.

The court further held that the by-law exemption is limited to services relating to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and does not extend to Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal proceedings.

The plaintiff vendor sold a property to the defendant purchaser under an agreement that included a $550,000 bonus payable if the purchaser obtained a 'favourable decision' on its 'current application' for rezoning to permit a supermarket.

The purchaser appealed the town's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) but ultimately settled for a zoning amendment that permitted retail use but not a supermarket.

The plaintiff sued for the bonus.

The court held that the bonus clause was triggered because the purchaser achieved the zoning it desired and urged upon the OMB, which constituted a 'favourable decision' on the appeal.

At a Commercial List case conference involving two related corporate disputes, the court addressed extensive procedural delays, voluminous filings, and lack of cooperation between counsel.

The proceedings involved claims relating to loan agreements, alleged rights to corporate shares, fiduciary duty breaches, and conspiracy allegations arising from financing arrangements and subsequent litigation.

The court declined to permit consolidation or bifurcation but ordered that both actions be heard together or sequentially.

Emphasizing proportionality under Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court directed the parties to disclose damages calculations, draft opening statements, and detailed historical and projected litigation costs.

The directions aimed to enable meaningful case management and ensure efficient use of judicial resources.

Following dismissal of a counterclaim after a five‑day trial, the successful defendants by counterclaim sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self‑represented counterclaimant made no submissions on costs despite being given multiple opportunities.

Applying the principle that costs should generally follow the event and must be fair and reasonable, the court found no reason to depart from the “loser pays” rule, particularly where the counterclaim lacked merit and caused unnecessary delay.

The court accepted the reasonableness of the hours claimed by counsel given the length of the trial and circumstances, including wasted court time caused by adjournments sought by the counterclaimant.

Costs were awarded to both successful parties on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff by counterclaim alleged that his brokerage and stockbroker made unauthorized trades in his margin account involving highly risky derivative securities during a period of extreme market volatility, causing substantial losses and forcing him to sign a promissory note.

The court examined the relationship between a broker and client and whether a fiduciary duty arose.

The evidence showed the account was non‑discretionary, the investor was knowledgeable, and the trades were executed on the client’s instructions.

The court found the investor’s testimony not credible and concluded that the losses resulted from authorized trading decisions during volatile market conditions.

The brokerage and broker breached no contractual, fiduciary, or regulatory duties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing seeking various forms of relief, including an order preventing the registrar from dismissing the action for delay.

Counsel for one defendant delivered notice requiring that the motion be heard orally under Rule 37.12(5)(d).

During a case conference, the court declined to grant an open-ended order preventing administrative dismissal and instead directed the plaintiffs to request a status hearing before the case management judge.

The court further directed that if the plaintiffs wished to proceed with the motion, they should promptly obtain a hearing date in consultation with defence counsel.

The defendant law society brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a statement of claim without leave to amend on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff sought declarations challenging the law society’s regulatory authority over paralegals, alleging anti‑competitive conduct contrary to the Competition Act, bad faith regulation, and a violation of a constitutional right to access affordable justice.

The court held that the Competition Act does not apply to the actions of a provincial regulatory body acting within its statutory mandate and that compliance with validly enacted provincial legislation is presumed to be in the public interest.

The court further relied on Supreme Court of Canada authority confirming there is no broad constitutional right to access legal services.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.