John Robert Edgar Archibald

On an uncertified proposed class proceeding arising from a pension fund’s loss on an FTX investment, the moving party sought leave to discontinue under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with agreed non-monetary disclosure commitments in the plan’s annual reporting and payment of class counsel fees and disbursements from the fund.

The court applied the discontinuance approval framework, including whether class interests would be prejudiced by abandonment of a viable claim and whether the result was a practical resolution in light of litigation risk.

The court found the class would not benefit from continued litigation on the record, accepted that the settlement terms were objectively reasonable, and held that non-monetary relief could constitute a positive settlement outcome.

The court also approved the reduced fee amount and disbursements as reasonable.

The plaintiff discontinued a proposed class action against the defendant, a discount brokerage firm, after the certification motion was adjourned.

The defendant sought costs for defending itself against the certification motion.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and should be apportioned among the multiple defendants originally sued.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced by approximately 25% to account for access to justice concerns in class action litigation.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a proposed settlement in a class action against Symantec Corporation concerning defective NortonTM-branded security software.

The settlement, valued at approximately $21.7 million, includes cash payments, free licenses, and discount codes for 640,000 Ontario class members.

After 7 years of litigation, discovery, and mediations, the parties reached an arm's length agreement.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite a small number of objections.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.

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 two motions: one alleging Ford's non-compliance with an approved class action settlement regarding exhaust odours in 2011-2015 Ford Explorers, and another seeking additional class counsel fees.

The court dismissed the non-compliance motion, finding no evidence that Ford breached its good faith obligations or that class members were deprived of proper repairs.

For the fees motion, the court awarded a modest additional amount of $75,000 plus HST, finding the initial request for $1.2 million excessive given the limited actual financial benefits to the class members from the settlement's reimbursement program.

The appellant brought a proposed class action asserting statutory claims for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and common law negligent misrepresentation against a foreign banking corporation.

The motion judge dismissed the statutory claim and stayed the common law claim, finding that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the jurisdiction appeal but allowed the costs appeal in part, reducing the costs award from $1,000,455.22 to $800,000.

The court held that the common law test for "real and substantial connection" applies to the definition of "responsible issuer" under the Securities Act, and that the defendant did not have such a connection to Ontario merely because the plaintiff accessed disclosure documents from his home computer in Ontario.

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 appellant, representative plaintiff in a proposed class action by unit holders of a real estate investment trust, appealed a motion judge's decision striking a knowing assistance claim against the respondents.

The claim alleged the respondents assisted a trustee in a breach of trust by concealing a conflict of interest in a property transaction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred by failing to generously construe the pleadings and by concluding that the respondents' alleged suppression of information and active participation could not amount to knowing assistance.

The claim was found to be legally plausible.

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 plaintiffs, an Ontario-based equity research company and its founder, published a negative research report about the defendants, Indian corporations.

The defendants commenced a defamation action in India and obtained an anti-suit injunction against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs subsequently brought an action in Ontario and sought an urgent interlocutory anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding with their Indian action and from pursuing contempt proceedings against a witness in India.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there might be a serious issue to be tried regarding the appropriate forum, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the status quo due to the plaintiffs' delay in seeking relief.

In a bifurcated class action certification motion, the court considered whether unit-holders of a publicly traded real estate investment trust had pleaded viable causes of action arising from an allegedly conflicted property transaction that was later rescinded, causing a sharp drop in unit value.

The court held it was plain and obvious that officers and trustees did not owe fiduciary duties directly to unit-holders in the circumstances pleaded, and struck the fiduciary duty claims.

However, the breach of trust claims against certain trustees, grounded in the declaration of trust and the arguable ability of unit-holders to sue for dishonest or negligent breach of trustee obligations, were allowed to proceed.

The knowing assistance claim survived only against the former CEO, while similar claims against the vendor parties and their solicitors were struck for failure to plead active assistance in the trustee's breach.

Certification was dismissed as against the vendor parties and their solicitors.

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.

Following a major appellate decision regarding the tolling of limitation periods in securities class actions, the successful parties in two of the appeals sought their costs.

The opposing parties argued for reduced costs on the basis of public interest, over-lawyering, and the fact that the court had overruled its own prior jurisprudence.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity and significance of the proceedings.

Costs of $151,250 and $100,000 were awarded to the respective successful parties on a partial indemnity scale.

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.

In three related securities class action appeals, the court reconsidered whether a statutory secondary-market misrepresentation claim under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act is time-barred unless leave is obtained within the s. 138.14 limitation period.

The court overruled Timminco and held that, for purposes of s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the statutory claim is asserted when the representative plaintiff pleads the statutory cause of action, the supporting facts, and an intention to seek leave within a timely commenced class proceeding.

The court also upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the s. 138.8 leave standard as screening out hopeless claims, while holding that the Green certification decision erred in failing to consider certifying common negligent misrepresentation issues other than reliance.

The plaintiffs' appeal in Green was allowed in part and the defendants' appeals in Silver and Celestica were dismissed.