John Anthony Fabello

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.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiff, LBP Holdings Ltd., brought a motion in a proposed securities class action to add the defendant's underwriters (Cormark Securities Inc. and Dundee Securities Limited) as party defendants following the original defendant's bankruptcy.

The plaintiff sought to assert five claims: primary market statutory, secondary market statutory, common law negligence, common law negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The court granted leave to add the underwriters for the common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, finding them tenable.

However, the primary market statutory claim was time-barred, and the secondary market statutory claim was untenable as underwriters were not considered "experts" under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The unjust enrichment claim was also dismissed as legally untenable due to a valid contractual basis for fees and the principle against shareholder derivative actions for corporate wrongs.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, shareholder class action plaintiffs sought to limit the scope of a stay of proceedings so that certification, leave, and amendment motions in related Ontario and Quebec securities class actions could proceed against auditors, underwriters, and former directors.

The court applied the established test for lifting a CCAA stay, considering relative prejudice, balance of convenience, and the merits.

Given the pending appeal concerning whether shareholder claims constituted “equity claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the imminent creditor meeting regarding a proposed plan of arrangement, the court found that maintaining the stay temporarily would avoid prejudice and promote orderly proceedings.

The court held that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the stay so that the auditors and underwriters could focus on the appeal and restructuring process.

The motion to limit the stay was dismissed without prejudice to renewal after the creditor meeting.

In CCAA proceedings, the applicant sought an order declaring that shareholder class action claims alleging losses from the purchase or sale of its securities constituted “equity claims” under s. 2 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant also sought a determination that indemnity and contribution claims advanced by auditors and underwriters in relation to those shareholder actions were likewise equity claims.

The court held that shareholder claims alleging losses from trading in the company’s securities fall squarely within the statutory definition of equity claims and are subordinated to creditor claims.

Indemnification and contribution claims arising from those shareholder actions were also characterized as equity claims because their nature derives from the underlying shareholder claims.

However, the court left open the possibility that claims for defence costs might not necessarily be equity claims depending on the outcome of the underlying litigation.

The moving parties in a proposed securities misrepresentation class proceeding sought court approval of a third‑party litigation funding agreement prior to certification.

The proposed agreement provided that the funder would pay certain disbursements and indemnify the plaintiffs against adverse costs in exchange for a capped commission from any settlement or judgment.

The court considered the developing law on litigation funding, including concerns about champerty and maintenance, and confirmed that such agreements are not categorically unlawful but require judicial approval.

Finding that the agreement preserved counsel’s independence, protected defendants through security for costs, and promoted access to justice, the court approved the funding arrangement.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.