James C. Orr

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Binance's appeal from the certification of a class action brought by Canadian investors who purchased cryptocurrency derivatives through Binance.

The court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim disclosed reasonable causes of action under both the Securities Act and at common law, and that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court rejected Binance’s arguments regarding the statutory and common law causes of action, the commonality of issues, and the appropriateness of class-wide remedies, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

This decision concerns a motion for pre-approval of a settlement in a national class action alleging price fixing in the packaged bread market in Canada.

The Ontario plaintiffs reached a $500 million settlement in principle with several defendants, including Loblaw Companies Limited and George Weston Limited, subject to court approval in both Ontario and Quebec.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-out and objection procedures, and the appointment of a settlement administrator, and set a hearing date for final approval.

The order amends the class definition and certification for settlement purposes only, and provides for the administration and notice of the settlement to class members.

The appellant, Binance Holdings Limited, appealed a motion judge's order dismissing its motion for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.

The underlying dispute involved a proposed class action by purchasers of cryptocurrency derivatives against Binance for alleged violations of the Ontario Securities Act.

The motion judge had found the arbitration clause void due to public policy and unconscionability, and that exceptions to the competence-competence principle applied, allowing the court to decide the validity of the arbitration clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the arbitration clause was inaccessible and unconscionable, effectively insulating Binance from meaningful challenge, and that the court properly exercised jurisdiction over the validity of the arbitration agreement.

The Providius defendants brought a motion to stay the action against them for abuse of process, alleging that the plaintiffs (Evertz) failed to promptly disclose all non-financial terms of a Pierringer-type settlement agreement with the Lawo defendants.

The court found that while some initial terms were disclosed, critical "business terms" that fundamentally altered the litigation landscape, such as Lawo divesting shares in Providius, Evertz gaining an option to purchase those shares, and Evertz indemnifying Lawo against potential claims from Providius, were withheld for eight months.

The court ruled that these undisclosed terms significantly changed the adversarial relationship and potential claims, constituting an abuse of process.

Consequently, the motion to stay the action against the Providius defendants was granted.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action against Binance for illegal sales of cryptocurrency derivative products without registration or prospectus, contrary to the Ontario Securities Act and common law.

The court granted certification, finding a recognizable cause of action, an identifiable class, and common issues suitable for class-wide determination, including liability and remedies like rescission and aggregate damages.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the mechanical impossibility of rescission and the unfeasibility of aggregate damages, noting a lack of factual basis for their claims of user-to-user contracts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

Class members who are not representative plaintiffs have no direct right of appeal from an order approving a settlement in a certified class action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the decision in Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada remains good law and has not been superseded by subsequent decisions.

A settlement approval order is neither a judgment on common issues nor a determination of aggregate damages, and therefore class members cannot seek leave to appeal under section 30(5) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Permitting individual class members to appeal settlement approvals would introduce uncertainty into settlement negotiations, undermine the authority of representative plaintiffs and class counsel, and impede the resolution of class actions.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the claims were baseless and important to their reputations.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale to both groups of defendants, fixing specific amounts for fees and disbursements, emphasizing that costs are not a mechanical exercise and must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiffs, Evertz Technologies Limited and Evertz Microsystems Limited, brought an action alleging theft of confidential information by former employees and competing businesses.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim in its entirety, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the alleged confidential information, its misuse, and its incorporation into the defendants' products.

The court found that the statement of claim, even with supplemental particulars, did not meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure required for claims of misappropriation and misuse of confidential information.

Consequently, the statement of claim was struck out, but the plaintiffs were granted leave to serve an amended statement of claim within 30 days.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

In CCAA proceedings involving a debtor company whose assets had already been sold and where no plan of arrangement was contemplated, the representative plaintiff in a proposed securities class action moved to lift the stay of proceedings and to amend the claims procedure order after failing to file a proof of claim by the claims bar date.

The directors argued that the claims procedure barred the class action against them and extinguished related claims, including access to insurance proceeds.

The court held that both the stay and the claims bar order are discretionary tools intended to facilitate restructuring or liquidation objectives under the CCAA.

Because the restructuring process had effectively concluded and no plan was forthcoming, using the claims bar order to extinguish the class action would serve no functional purpose under the CCAA.

The court exercised its discretion to lift the stay and modify the claims procedure order to permit the plaintiff to proceed with the class action.

In a proposed class action against an insurer, the court addressed procedural directions for the hearing of a certification motion and a defendant’s summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs sought a further and better affidavit of documents before the summary judgment motion, arguing procedural unfairness.

The court held that there was no automatic entitlement to an affidavit of documents at this stage and emphasized proportionality principles and the court’s discretion under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court directed that no affidavits of documents were required and restricted the defendant’s summary judgment motion to limitation period defences against the proposed representative plaintiffs.

The certification motion and the focused summary judgment motion were ordered to be heard together with a revised timetable.

The applicant, Sino-Forest Corporation, sought an order sanctioning a plan of compromise and reorganization under the CCAA.

The plan was supported by the vast majority of creditors, including noteholders, auditors, and underwriters, but opposed by certain funds.

The court found that the statutory requirements were met, the creditors were properly classified, and the plan, including its third-party releases, was fair and reasonable.

The motion was granted and the plan was sanctioned.

Institutional investors sought an adjournment of a motion to sanction a restructuring plan under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, arguing that provisions in the proposed plan concerning settlements and releases for third party defendants could improperly affect their ability to pursue claims in related securities class actions.

The court reviewed the plan and concluded that approval of any specific settlement, including a proposed auditor settlement, was not before the court on the sanction motion and would require further court orders and satisfaction of multiple conditions precedent.

The court held that any potential impact on investors’ claims could be addressed in future proceedings where the specific settlements and releases would be considered.

As the objections were premature and the debtor faced time and funding constraints, the request for an adjournment was denied.

A lawyer sought payment for drafting work performed for a litigation firm during discussions about potential employment.

The plaintiff claimed a verbal retainer and invoiced more than $31,000 plus a premium for anticipated class action success.

The court held that although some remuneration was contemplated, the parties implicitly understood the work was connected to class proceedings conducted on a contingency basis.

Accordingly, payment would arise only if and when class counsel recovered fees in the underlying actions.

The plaintiff was granted a declaration that his reasonable hourly fees would be payable as a disbursement if the firm later recovered fees, but otherwise the claim was premature.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation action under the Securities Act and to certify a class proceeding against the defendants for misrepresentation, conspiracy, and oppression.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants fabricated a financial crisis by including a 'going concern' note in the company's financial statements to artificially depress the share price, allowing insiders to acquire shares cheaply.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial, as the financial disclosures were factual, required by GAAP, and made after reasonable investigation.

The court also refused to certify the conspiracy claim due to a lack of factual basis and struck the oppression claim, ruling that the Ontario Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an oppression remedy under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act.

Following dismissal of a proposed pharmaceutical class action certification motion, the successful defendants sought $1.2 million in costs.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to public interest considerations relating to individuals with mental illness or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to $75,000.

The court held that although individuals with mental illness may constitute a historically disadvantaged group, the evidentiary record did not engage the public interest considerations under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying the principles governing certification motion costs and considering the complexity of the proceeding, the plaintiffs’ litigation conduct, and comparable awards, the court fixed fees at $475,000 and allowed most disbursements subject to a reduction in travel expenses.