John E. Callaghan

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard unopposed applications by the Joint Committee in the national Hepatitis C class actions (Parsons and Kreppner) to allocate approximately $160 million in "Excess Capital" from the settlement fund.

The Joint Committee proposed four recommendations to increase various benefits for approved class members and family members, including lump sum payments, loss of guidance/care/companionship awards, lost pension benefits, and loss of services rates.

The court granted the application, finding the proposed allocations reasonable, non-discriminatory, and consistent with the settlement agreement's purpose of bridging compensatory gaps.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.

Catalyst Capital Group Inc. attempted to acquire VimpelCom Ltd.'s interest in Wind Mobile Corp. but negotiations failed.

During negotiations, a junior analyst employed by Catalyst left to work for West Face Capital Inc., a member of a consortium that subsequently acquired Wind.

Catalyst sued the former employee and West Face for breach of confidence and other claims (the Moyse Action).

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that no confidential information was communicated and that Catalyst suffered no detriment because its own refusal to agree to a break fee and its insistence on regulatory concessions made the deal impossible.

Catalyst then commenced a second action against the consortium members and others alleging breach of confidence, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as barred by issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel, and as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that Catalyst was attempting to relitigate factual findings from the first action and that it could have advanced all claims in the first proceeding.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the defendants to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, with leave to amend.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the claims were baseless and important to their reputations.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

Instead, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale to both groups of defendants, fixing specific amounts for fees and disbursements, emphasizing that costs are not a mechanical exercise and must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a US$90 million settlement of a class action against the defendant auditors for alleged negligence and misrepresentation in auditing a company's financial statements.

The court considered the significant litigation risks, the defences advanced, and the depletion of the defendants' insurance coverage.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlement.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee request of approximately $21.9 million, noting the substantial risk undertaken and the successful result achieved after 17 years of litigation.

The appellant, a debt collector, was laid off when the respondent lost its contract with Capital One.

The respondent subsequently received a $6.675 million settlement from Capital One.

The appellant brought a class action alleging the respondent breached employment contracts by failing to pay commissions on the settlement payment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the class action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge did not err in interpreting the Commission Agreement as requiring employees to exceed a "breakeven" financial target to earn commissions, which laid-off employees could not satisfy.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and upheld the use of summary judgment as an appropriate procedure.

Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (BTC) sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx (MTX) from terminating a $770 million contract for light rail vehicles (LRVs) due to alleged material default, pending the completion of a mandatory dispute resolution process.

BTC also sought to remove the Engineer, Jeffrey Rankin, for alleged partiality.

The court found that the contract's dispute resolution process applied to MTX's right to terminate for material default.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court determined there was a serious issue to be tried, BTC would suffer irreparable harm (loss of reputation, future business, supply chain disruption, and employee expertise), and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, prohibiting MTX from terminating the contract until the Dispute Review Board (DRB) ruled on the default, and ordered the injunction to be nunc pro tunc to stay cure periods.

The issue of the Engineer's impartiality was referred to the DRB.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a partial summary judgment motion.

The appellants (lenders) and respondents (Deloitte) agreed on the quantum of costs for both the motion below and the appeal but disagreed on timing of payment.

The respondents argued costs should remain in the cause based on an alleged agreement that no money change hands on interlocutory motions until final resolution.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding it inconsistent with the respondents' own prior positions and earlier costs orders in the litigation.

The court determined that the motion judge erred in granting partial summary judgment and that costs should be fixed and payable immediately.

Following a successful partial summary judgment motion, the defendants sought costs of $700,000 plus disbursements payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be in the cause.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that costs should be in the cause, as the trial was imminent and the trial judge would be in the best position to allocate liability for costs.

The court clarified that the costs would be in the cause of the specific plaintiff's action, not the consolidated action involving a receiver.

Lenders brought a class proceeding alleging negligent misrepresentation by auditors in connection with audited financial statements relied upon when extending a large syndicated loan.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim on the basis that no duty of care was owed to the lending syndicate.

Applying the principles from Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, the court held that auditors generally owe duties to the corporation and its shareholders but not to third-party lenders due to concerns about indeterminate liability.

Although the auditors knew lenders would likely review the statements, they did not know the identity of the lenders nor prepare the audits for the specific lending transaction.

The court concluded the circumstances did not negate indeterminate liability and no duty of care arose.

In a billion‑dollar negligence class action against auditors arising from allegedly defective audit reports relied upon by lenders, the plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of investigative materials held by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario relating to disciplinary proceedings against two audit partners.

The court held that production from a non‑party requires proof that the documents are relevant and that it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed without them.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate unfairness because they already possessed the underlying documentary record and extensive discovery evidence, and the investigator’s report was not necessary for the pending partial summary judgment motion or the pleaded issue estoppel.

The court further held that the materials were protected by a case‑by‑case privilege under the Wigmore criteria arising from confidential communications between the professional regulator and its members during disciplinary investigations.

The plaintiff, a senior investment banker, alleged he was constructively dismissed when his employer failed to promote him to a promised Team Leader position by a fixed date.

The court found that the employer had not breached the employment contract, as it was taking reasonable steps to implement the promotion within a reasonable timeframe and had paid the plaintiff significant increased compensation.

The court concluded the plaintiff voluntarily resigned to join a competitor start-up.

The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed, but the plaintiff was awarded minor amounts for unpaid cash incentive pay and a declared dividend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine whether a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice could sit outside Ontario to hear a motion concerning a pan-Canadian class action settlement.

The Attorney General of Ontario objected, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its territorial boundaries.

The court held that where it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, it possesses the inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, which includes the discretion to sit outside the province.

The court found that holding a joint hearing with supervisory judges from British Columbia and Quebec in Alberta was in the interests of justice to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent orders.