John A. Campion

This is a class action alleging financial misrepresentations in the sale of the defendant's securities.

The class comprises persons or entities who acquired securities between March 30, 2011 and November 7, 2013.

The action was certified under the Class Proceedings Act in December 2018.

The parties reached a proposed settlement whereby the defendant will pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability to resolve all claims.

The court approved the notice plan for dissemination to class members and appointed Epiq Global as the settlement administrator.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a proposed class action against Capital One and Amazon Web following a data breach.

The motion judge had struck the appellants' pleadings without leave to amend and dismissed their certification motion, finding the case 'doomed to fail'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the pleadings failed to disclose viable causes of action for data misuse (intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence/trust/fiduciary duty) and data breach (negligence, statutory claims).

The Court also upheld the decision to deny leave to amend the pleadings, citing repeated opportunities and the defective nature of the claims.

The appellants' motion for an extension of time to appeal costs was also dismissed.

The defendants moved to dismiss a 2009 action for delay and, alternatively, for security for costs.

The court found the delay of 13 years to be inordinate and inexcusable, primarily due to the plaintiff Lawrence Mark Dale's inactivity and failure to provide explanations or respond to the motion.

A presumption of prejudice to the defendants arose, which the plaintiff failed to rebut, particularly given the nature of the conspiracy claims requiring witness recollection.

The action was dismissed for delay.

The court also addressed the security for costs motion, noting that if the action had not been dismissed, Mr. Dale would have been ordered to post $400,000 in security for costs to TRREB due to an outstanding costs order against him in another proceeding.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a $240 billion class action against a financial institution and a cloud storage provider following a massive data breach perpetrated by a former employee of the storage provider.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence, and negligence, arguing that the defendants misappropriated and misused the class members' personal information by retaining and aggregating it beyond its initial purpose.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim egregiously contravened the rules of pleading and failed to disclose any legally viable causes of action against the corporate defendants.

The pleading was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval to settle and discontinue their claims against the defendant GitHub.

GitHub, an American corporation, had challenged the court's jurisdiction.

After an initial adjournment to address jurisdictional concerns, the plaintiffs submitted revised materials.

The court approved the settlement, finding that discontinuing the action against GitHub was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the litigation risks, costs, and the fact that the remaining defendants had sufficient financial strength to meet any damages.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought unsuccessful motions for an injunction and for refusals.

The Capital One defendants sought costs of $135,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued they should be awarded costs despite losing, claiming they achieved their objective.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding their motions were ill-advised and meritless.

Costs were awarded to the Capital One defendants in the amount of $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach brought motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examinations of two affiants and an omnibus motion to strike out various affidavits, factum paragraphs, and a sealing motion.

The court dismissed the refusals motions, finding the questions asked were beyond the narrow scope of the underlying motions (an injunction motion and a sealing motion) and were properly refused.

The court also dismissed the omnibus motion, finding no reason to strike the evidence or alter the timetable for the upcoming jurisdiction and certification motions.

In a proposed class action regarding a massive data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for substitutional service on a defendant residing in the United States whose exact whereabouts were unknown.

The court held that because the defendant's address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply, and service could be effected under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, allowing substitutional service by emailing the documents to the defendant's U.S. criminal defence attorney.

The court issued a costs decision in an exceptional case following a carriage motion in a class action.

The Slapinski Action Consortium, though unsuccessful in the carriage motion, sought costs against the Del Giudice Action Consortium's counsel for non-compliance with a case management direction regarding simultaneous exchange of motion materials.

The court found that the Del Giudice Action Consortium's failure to comply with the simultaneous exchange rule prejudiced the court's ability to fairly decide the carriage contest, constituting a default under Rule 57.07.

Despite the Del Giudice Action Consortium's success on the carriage motion, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $42,907 to the Slapinski Action Consortium, to be paid personally by the Del Giudice Action Consortium's counsel.

Two rival consortia of law firms brought a carriage motion to determine who would prosecute a class action against Capital One, Amazon, and GitHub regarding a massive data breach affecting 6 million Canadians.

The court evaluated the competing case theories, noting that while both actions were viable, the Del Giudice Action's strategy of including Amazon and GitHub as defendants, despite adding complexity and litigation risk, was preferable for advancing the interests of the class and the goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

Carriage was granted to the Del Giudice Action.

Apotex sought damages for breach of contract and negligence against MDS for deficient bioequivalence studies that the FDA ultimately rejected.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The trial judge found the action was timely, determining that discovery occurred on December 11, 2006, when Apotex learned the FDA would not accept the MDS studies.

The Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion but on different grounds, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until December 11, 2006, based on when Apotex knew that the breach had caused injury, loss or damage.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on breach of contract, mitigation, and damages.

The Atkinson defendants brought a motion seeking approval to withdraw funds held in trust to pay legal fees and costs awards.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the funds were subject to a solicitor's undertaking given by the Atkinson defendants' counsel to hold them in trust pending the resolution of the dispute.

The court found that a clear and unambiguous undertaking existed, binding the funds to remain in trust until entitlement was determined by the court or by agreement between the parties.

Consequently, the Atkinson defendants' request to access the funds was denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during the cross-examination of an affiant.

The affidavit was sworn in the context of a pending motion to determine whether certain funds were held in trust pursuant to an agreement.

The Case Management Judge found that while the questions might meet the semblance of relevance test, they fell outside the narrow scope of the upcoming trust funds motion.

To ensure proportionality and efficiency, the court declined to order the questions answered at this time, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew the request after the disposition of the trust funds motion.

The plaintiff tenant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant landlord from terminating a commercial lease and taking possession of the premises, and for a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew.

The landlord had refused to renew the lease, alleging the tenant failed to duly and regularly pay percentage rent based on an audit.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the tenant failed to meet the threshold of showing a serious issue to be tried or a strong prima facie case that it had satisfied the preconditions for renewal, as the evidence showed a history of late rent payments and no waiver by the landlord.

A private mortgage lender purchased mortgage insurance from an insurer and became the victim of mortgage fraud.

The lender's lawyer paid mortgage proceeds to the borrower's lawyer in trust rather than directly to the borrower.

The insurer denied coverage based on an exception clause requiring proceeds to be paid to the registered title holder.

The application judge found the exception did not apply.

The insurer appealed.

The majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, holding that payment to the borrower's lawyer in trust constitutes payment to the borrower for purposes of the insurance policy.

The dissent argued the exception clause was unambiguous and applied because the funds were not paid directly to the registered title holder.

Apotex brought an action against MDS (now Nordion) for breach of contract and negligence arising from bioequivalence studies conducted by MDS for Apotex's generic drug applications to the FDA.

The FDA refused to accept the studies due to MDS's failure to comply with U.S. regulatory requirements, forcing Apotex to repeat or certify the studies and delaying the launch of its drugs.

The court found MDS breached the Master Laboratory Services Agreement and its duty of care.

The court rejected MDS's defences regarding standing and the limitation period.

Apotex was awarded over $11.3 million in damages for the costs of repeating/certifying the studies and for lost profits due to the delayed market entry.