Jordan Elizabeth Allison

The Plaintiffs, Evertz Technologies Inc. et al., brought a motion seeking to continue confidentiality provisions regarding settlement agreements (Pierringer Agreements) reached with the Lawo Defendants, who had settled out of the multi-party litigation.

The Providius Defendants, non-settling parties, opposed the continuation of confidentiality, arguing that the terms of the settlement agreements directly impacted them and were necessary for a new action they intended to bring against Evertz and Lawo.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' request, finding that Evertz failed to meet the high burden for a confidentiality order under the Sierra Club and Sherman Estate tests, as the commercial interest in confidentiality did not transcend the parties' specific interests and maintaining confidentiality would significantly prejudice the Providius Defendants' ability to plead and obtain a fair trial in their intended action.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action against Binance for selling crypto derivatives products without filing a prospectus, contrary to the Securities Act.

Binance brought a motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong, relying on an arbitration agreement in its online terms of service.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the arbitration agreement void ab initio as contrary to public policy and unconscionable, given the disproportionate cost of arbitration in Hong Kong compared to the average investor's claim and the inequality of bargaining power in the standard form 'click' contract.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a Litigation Funding Agreement (LFA) to fund a class action against the defendants.

The court examined the LFA under section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, assessing whether it was in the best interests of the class, furthered access to justice, was not champertous, and did not interfere with the lawyer-client relationship.

The court found the LFA fair, reasonable, and compliant with statutory requirements, noting the funder's financial capacity and undertaking for costs.

The motion was granted, and an order was also made designating class counsel and precluding similar actions without notice and leave.

The plaintiff physician brought an action against the defendant hospital and individuals for damages arising from a de facto suspension of his hospital privileges and alleged breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The defendants moved to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the plaintiff had not exhausted his remedies under the Public Hospitals Act (PHA), and on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process.

The court found that while the action was premature because the plaintiff had not exhausted his PHA remedies regarding the de facto suspension, the appropriate remedy was to stay the action rather than strike it.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments on res judicata and abuse of process, but struck certain paragraphs of the statement of claim that made unfounded attacks on the hospital's legal counsel, with leave to amend.