Ian Epstein

Following a successful motion for security for costs, the moving defendants sought costs of $10,000.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs award, arguing he was impecunious and requesting the underlying decision be set aside.

The court held that the plaintiff could not use alleged impecuniosity as a shield against costs, particularly given his failure to provide necessary financial evidence and his history of litigation.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 payable by the plaintiff to the moving defendants.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff objected to the form and content of the draft order prepared by the defendants.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's written objections, found them to be a reiteration of arguments made at the hearing, and signed the draft order as satisfactory.

The court also formally dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the statement of defence, noting it was rendered academic by the striking of the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against financial advisors and their dealer, alleging they systemically recommended a 'Leveraging Scheme' to borrow money to invest in mutual funds without regard to suitability.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the class was identifiable, and common issues existed regarding the duty of care, breach of duty, and punitive damages.

The court declined to certify damages as a common issue, finding it required individual assessment.

The court also held that a class proceeding was preferable to the Ombudsman for Banking and Investment Services (OBSI) process, which lacked binding remedial powers and adequate investor participation.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence of an MFDA settlement was dismissed.