James C. Orr

This five-judge appeal reconsidered the common law governing non-disclosure of partial settlement agreements in multi-party civil litigation.

The court held that the prior rule mandating an automatic finding of abuse of process and an automatic stay, without proof of prejudice or regard to proportionality, was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

The proper approach requires a contextual and discretionary abuse of process analysis focused on unfairness, prejudice, oppression, harm to the administration of justice, and a proportionate remedy, with r. 49.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure reinforcing that framework.

Applying that approach, the court allowed two appeals and remitted those matters, while dismissing two others where the record was sufficient to determine the result.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Amazon moved for approval of a third-party funding agreement under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found the agreement to be fair and reasonable, noting it provided sufficient funding for disbursements and adverse costs without overcompensating the funder.

The court also granted an order designating the plaintiff's lawyers as class counsel and precluding the commencement of similar actions in Ontario without leave of the court.

The defendants and their alter ego, Nest Services Limited, brought a motion for directions on whether they could serve the plaintiffs with an application for an anti-anti-suit injunction in Hong Kong.

The court had previously declared the arbitration agreement void and issued an anti-suit injunction barring the defendants from pursuing arbitration in Hong Kong.

The court held that pursuing the anti-anti-suit injunction was effectively pursuing the enjoined arbitrations, and directed that the defendants may not take any steps to advance the arbitrations.

The plaintiffs successfully obtained an anti-suit injunction to halt an arbitration commenced by the defendants in Hong Kong, which was found to be an abusive collateral attack on prior Ontario rulings.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $261,900 in substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing the defendants' vexatious and oppressive tactics in pursuing the foreign arbitration and threatening the representative plaintiffs with personal financial jeopardy.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a pre-approval order regarding a $500 million settlement in principle with the Loblaw defendants in a national class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy for packaged bread.

The court granted the order, amending the certification of the Ontario action for settlement purposes only, appointing the settlement administrator, and approving the notice plan and pre-approval notices to inform class members of the settlement and their opt-out or objection rights.

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 appellants appealed a certification order in a price-fixing class action regarding packaged bread.

They argued the motions judge erred by excluding indirect purchasers who bought bread from non-defendant retailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly settled the certification order to reflect his reasons and the nature of the single conspiracy pleaded, which required the product to pass through both a defendant producer and a defendant retailer.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against Binance for selling crypto derivatives products without filing a prospectus, contrary to the Securities Act.

Binance brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong, relying on an arbitration agreement in its online terms of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement void ab initio as contrary to public policy and unconscionable, given the disproportionate cost of arbitration in Hong Kong compared to the average investor's claim and the inequality of bargaining power in the standard form 'click' contract.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

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 plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

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.