Jonathan Toshach Weyman

The applicants, shareholders of TD Bank, sought leave under section 334 of the Bank Act to bring a derivative action in Delaware on behalf of TD Bank's U.S. subsidiary regarding anti-money laundering failures.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Bank Act does not permit an Ontario court to grant leave for a derivative action to be commenced in a foreign jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, leave would not be granted because the proposed action did not appear to be in the best interests of the bank, given the board's reasonable business judgment and the potential prejudice to the bank in other ongoing litigation.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

The appellant, Layla Hassan, appealed a judgment concerning Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, upon review of the materials and with the consent of both parties, dismissed the appeal without costs.

The respondent, Sara Baker, suffered a stroke and was denied long-term disability benefits by the appellant, Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada.

A jury at trial found in favour of Baker, awarding retroactive benefits, aggravated damages, and $1.5 million in punitive damages, along with full indemnity costs.

Blue Cross appealed the punitive damages award and sought leave to appeal the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the punitive damages, finding ample evidence of Blue Cross's reckless indifference or deliberate strategy to deny benefits, and that the quantum was rationally connected to deterrence.

The Court granted leave to appeal costs but ultimately dismissed the costs appeal, upholding the full indemnity costs based on Blue Cross's misconduct and the respondent's settlement offer, correcting the trial judge's reasoning for the costs award.

The plaintiff was wholly successful in a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement regarding environmental pollution.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant overtly breached its settlement obligations and engaged in dilatory tactics.

The court found the defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, including attempting to secretly transfer assets and blocking remedial work.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $212,532.99.