John Archibald

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to approve a national settlement regarding alleged exhaust leaks in certain Ford Explorer vehicles.

The court approved the discontinuance of claims regarding other Ford models, added a new representative plaintiff, and certified the class for settlement.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement, the notice plan, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs.

The successful defendants in a proposed class action sought costs of $1,000,455.22 on a partial indemnity basis following a dispositive jurisdiction motion.

The unsuccessful plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the case raised novel and important issues regarding the jurisdictional reach of Ontario courts over foreign defendants in securities matters, or alternatively, that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the litigation was entrepreneurial rather than altruistic, and that the issues were not novel in a way that justified departing from the normal loser-pays rule.

The court concluded that the defendants' costs, including substantial expert witness fees, were fair, reasonable, and within the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff given the $8 billion value of the claim.

The defendants were awarded their costs as requested.

The plaintiff brought a proposed global class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 against a foreign holding company and its former employee, alleging misrepresentations in the secondary market regarding anti-money laundering compliance and Libor/Euribor manipulation.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter or on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a declaration that the corporate defendant was a 'responsible issuer' under the Securities Act.

The court found that the corporate defendant did not carry on business in Ontario and rebutted any presumptive connecting factors, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

Furthermore, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The statutory claims were dismissed and the common law claims were stayed.

The representative plaintiff in a class action sought costs following a successful second motion under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act and a subsequent consent certification.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $31,089 for the contested motion.

For the balance of the certification motion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award because the defendants did not communicate their consent in a timely fashion, fixing costs at $65,235, with one-third payable forthwith and two-thirds payable in the cause.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order holding that a class action statement of claim disclosed a viable cause of action for knowing assistance in breach of trust.

The motion judge had struck a claim for breach of fiduciary duty but allowed the knowing assistance claim to proceed under the test applicable to Rule 21 and s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Applying Rule 62.02(4)(b), the court considered whether there was reason to doubt the correctness of the order and whether the proposed appeal raised matters of general importance beyond the interests of the parties.

The court held that the proposed appeal concerned only the application of well‑established pleading principles and did not raise issues of broader legal significance.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.

Following the dismissal of an urgent anti-suit injunction application, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court found that the moving parties had manufactured urgency despite having months of advance notice of the foreign proceeding they sought to enjoin, and had delivered voluminous materials on extremely short notice, impairing the responding parties’ ability to respond.

The court concluded the litigation strategy was tactical and inconsistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles of fairness.

As a result, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful responding parties.

The court fixed the costs award at $27,500 as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiff, a unit-holder in a real estate investment trust (REIT), brought a proposed class action alleging that the REIT's former CEO and trustees breached their fiduciary duties and duties of trust by entering into an undisclosed related-party transaction.

On a bifurcated certification motion to determine if the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court struck the breach of fiduciary duty claims, finding that the defendants owed duties to the REIT but not to the unit-holders.

However, the court allowed the breach of trust claims against the trustees and the knowing assistance claim against the former CEO to proceed, while striking the knowing assistance claims against the vendor and the vendor's solicitors.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a settlement in a certified securities class action, approval of class counsel's fees, and payment of honoraria to the representative plaintiffs.

The action alleged misrepresentations and failure to disclose material changes regarding a major contract.

The court reviewed the proposed settlement of USD$3.5 million, the requested class counsel fees of 30% of the recovery, and the honoraria.

Applying the relevant legal tests, the court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement, fees, and honoraria.

The plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents from the defendant SNC, including a Negotiated Resolution Agreement between SNC and the World Bank regarding bribery allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The court held that the World Bank's sanctions procedures constituted 'litigation' for the purposes of the privilege, that the communications were intended to be confidential, and that their purpose was to effect a settlement.

The court declined to create a public policy exception to the privilege and found no waiver of the privilege by SNC.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the directors, officers, and advisors of a Delaware-incorporated company for alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The defendants brought motions to strike the claim for punitive damages, strike the claim against a former director for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and stay the action against the foreign financial advisors on jurisdictional grounds.

The court granted all motions, striking the punitive damages claim as inconsistent with the statutory scheme, striking the claim against the former director without leave to amend, and permanently staying the action against the foreign advisors as the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to pursue a class action against CIBC and its senior officers for alleged secondary market misrepresentations concerning CIBC's exposure to the U.S. residential mortgage market.

The court found that the plaintiffs met the test for leave and certification for the statutory claim.

However, applying the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Sharma v. Timminco Limited, the court held that the statutory claim was time-barred because leave was not obtained within the three-year limitation period under s. 138.14 of the Securities Act.

Consequently, both motions were dismissed.