Imad Alame

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

Following the dismissal of the main class action on its merits and the exhaustion of appeals, the defendant requested an endorsement confirming that its 74 dormant third party claims were deemed dismissed.

The court converted the case conference into a motion under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Finding that an omnibus dismissal was fair, avoided unnecessary expense, and served the administration of justice, the court granted the request and ordered the third party claims dismissed.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a prior summary judgment order that set aside and unwound a corporate reorganization.

The appellants argued the order applied to only six of seven entities involved in rooftop solar projects, excluding one.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, finding that the original order intended to unwind the reorganization for all seven entities, as it would make no sense to exclude one given the context of the initial findings of oppression and the single reorganization event.

The appellant, a representative plaintiff in a class action, appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against Olympia Trust Company.

The action alleged that Olympia Trust, as a custodial trustee for syndicated mortgage loans (SMLs) held in registered savings accounts, breached trust and fiduciary duties by failing to ensure the SMLs were "qualified investments" under the Income Tax Act.

The motion judge found it plain and obvious that the claims for breach of trust and fiduciary duty could not succeed, and that other certification criteria were not met.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the Income Tax Act provisions and the Declaration of Trust did not impose the extensive "gatekeeping" or "watchdog" duties alleged by the appellant on Olympia Trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties sought advice and directions regarding a previous order that set aside a corporate reorganization for breaching a share pledge agreement.

The responding parties argued the previous order did not apply to a specific entity, Hay Bay Solar LP, because it was not explicitly named.

The court interpreted the previous order broadly, finding that the reorganization was a single integrated transaction and the order set it aside in its entirety, including Hay Bay.

The court also found that issue estoppel would prevent relitigating the ownership of Hay Bay.