Jessica A. Kimmel

Following an appeal, the court received written submissions regarding the quantum of costs.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the appeal involved a novel issue of law or public interest, but agreed that the respondents' claimed costs were excessive.

Costs were fixed on a partial-indemnity basis at $15,000 payable to each of the two respondent groups.

The appellant, an investor who purchased shares in the secondary market, sought to certify a class proceeding against the issuer, underwriters, and auditors for negligent misrepresentation in a prospectus.

The motions judge dismissed the action, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they did not establish a special relationship giving rise to a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the pleadings lacked material facts to support a duty of care owed to secondary market purchasers by the auditors or underwriters.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them liable for losses in a short sale margin account.

The primary debtor opened the account and the co-appellant guaranteed it.

The appellants argued the investment dealer owed a fiduciary duty to the guarantor and breached a duty of full disclosure by failing to disclose that the primary debtor had not posted the required margin security.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that there was no fiduciary relationship and that the non-disclosure was not material, as the guarantor knew the account was in a loss position and that he was securing that loss.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for inducing breach of contract on a motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge correctly applied the governing principles for summary judgment and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants appealed an order directing that a certification motion in a class proceeding be heard in Hamilton based on the balance of convenience.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that rule 37.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to determine the venue of a certification motion and that section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 does not oust that rule.

The court further held that the balance of convenience is not the proper test for granting leave under rule 37.03(4) to hear a motion elsewhere.