Jonathan Laxer

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

In a class proceeding involving claims by automobile dealers, the plaintiff moved to add punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages as an additional common issue against a defendant law firm.

Although the proposed question concerning entitlement to punitive damages had some commonality, the court held that punitive damages could not be appropriately determined at the common issues stage because causation and compensatory damages had not been certified and would require individualized assessments.

The court emphasized the doctrinal link between compensatory damages and punitive damages and concluded that the degree of misconduct could not be meaningfully assessed until the defendant's liability and related third-party claims were resolved.

As a result, the proposed question was not a preferable procedure under s. 5(1)(d) of the Class Action Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion was dismissed, though the court noted that punitive damages could still be addressed later in the proceedings under the court’s broad management powers.

In a national class action by terminated GM dealers against GMCL and their counsel, Cassels Brock & Blackwell (CBB), CBB brought third party claims against out-of-province local lawyers who provided independent legal advice to the dealers.

The out-of-province third parties brought motions to stay or dismiss the claims for lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction under the fourth Van Breda presumptive connecting factor because the Wind-Down Agreements, which required the independent legal advice, were made in Ontario and were sufficiently connected to the dispute.

The court also found Ontario to be the most appropriate forum.