Jonathan Eric Bida

Trustees of a pension fund sought certification of a securities class action and leave to proceed with statutory secondary‑market misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

The proposed class alleged that a mining company and its officers misrepresented the value and prospects of two West African mines and failed to timely record a goodwill impairment.

The court analyzed the leave test requiring a “reasonable possibility of success at trial” and concluded that the plaintiffs’ theory relied on flawed expert analysis and speculative assumptions regarding drilling results and impairment triggers.

The alleged low‑grade ore misrepresentation was found to be semantically inaccurate, and an alleged schedule misrepresentation had not been pleaded.

Leave to proceed under the Securities Act was therefore refused, and certification was denied, though the individual common law negligence claim could continue.

The representative plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action sought court approval of a third party litigation funding agreement after the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund declined funding and class counsel declined to indemnify against adverse costs.

The funder agreed to indemnify the plaintiffs for adverse costs in exchange for a fixed percentage of any net recovery.

The court reviewed the developing jurisprudence on litigation funding in class proceedings and articulated guiding principles for approval, including requirements that the agreement not impair the solicitor‑client relationship, not undermine the representative plaintiff’s control of the litigation, and be fair and reasonable to the class.

The court also held that such agreements must be disclosed and approved by the court and may require security for costs.

Finding the agreement necessary to facilitate access to justice and fair to the class, the court approved the funding arrangement.

Representative plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding brought a motion seeking court approval of a $4 million settlement arising from allegations of physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse at a residential school for children with learning disabilities and behavioural issues.

The court considered the settlement under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which requires approval if the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

Significant litigation risks were identified, including uncertainty regarding insurance coverage, the defendants’ impecuniosity, and the possibility of contested liability and damages assessments.

The settlement created a points-based claims process with capped compensation and provided for charitable cy-près distribution of any residual funds.

The court concluded that the settlement, counsel fees representing 25% of the recovery, and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs were fair and reasonable.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to amend a previously issued and entered order arising from a Rule 21 motion in a proposed securities class action.

The original order dismissed the defendants’ motion to strike claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act but failed to reflect the judge’s reasoning that the special circumstances doctrine permitted leave to be granted nunc pro tunc despite the expiry of the statutory limitation period.

The court held that the omission of this conclusion from the formal order was an oversight and that Rule 59.06(1) permits amendment where the order does not accurately express the court’s manifest intention as reflected in the reasons for decision.

The court rejected arguments that the requested amendment was premature or an improper reconsideration of the earlier ruling.

The order was amended to include the finding regarding the special circumstances doctrine.

Following certification of a class proceeding concerning alleged systemic abuse at a provincial institution, the court determined the appropriate costs award for the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs, arguing that the defendant increased litigation expenses by delaying disclosure of its position and by re‑litigating issues previously rejected in similar proceedings.

The court held that while the defendant’s conduct was frustrating, it did not reach the threshold of “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous” behaviour required for full indemnity costs.

However, because the plaintiff had delivered an unaccepted offer to settle, Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure justified partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The requested amounts were found reasonable and were awarded accordingly.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement of a representative action under Rule 10.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning governance and alleged improprieties in transactions involving the outsourcing and reassumption of real estate asset management by a pension plan.

After extensive litigation, mediation, documentary disclosure, and a neutral fact‑finding process, a report concluded that the transactions were commercially reasonable and that no wrongdoing occurred, although transparency concerns had arisen.

The settlement recognized governance reforms implemented during the litigation and provided for dismissal of the action with reimbursement of the representative plaintiff’s legal costs.

Applying principles analogous to settlement approval under the Class Proceedings Act, the court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the represented persons.

The settlement was approved and the action dismissed.