J.T. Akbarali

The applicant, an automobile parts manufacturer, sought a determination of liability insurance coverage from its insurers after settling a product liability claim for $24 million USD.

The dispute centered on when the respondent's umbrella coverage responded and the quantum of the claim.

The court held that the umbrella coverage responded once the primary policy limits were exhausted, and that the applicant was entitled to recover the balance of its loss, including forecast repair costs, totaling $13.4 million USD.

In a supplementary decision on a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action, the court considered whether certain disclosures constituted public corrections of alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants in February and March 2012 regarding a mining project's capital expenditure budget and schedule.

The court found a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs could prove the July 2012 disclosure was a partial public correction, but rejected subsequent disclosures in November 2012 and April 2013 as public corrections.

Leave was granted to proceed with the misrepresentation claims against the corporate defendant and two individual certifying officers.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain their former employee, the defendant, from competing, soliciting clients or employees, and using confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as their allegations were based on suspicion rather than clear evidence.

The balance of convenience also heavily favoured the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of $40,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes, approve a $105,000 settlement, and approve class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged that the defendants misclassified event staffing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of minimum employment standards.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable given the significant risk of non-recovery due to the corporate defendant ceasing operations.

Class counsel fees of $50,454.50 plus disbursements were approved, and the representative plaintiff was awarded a $4,000 honorarium.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

The plaintiff sought an order to discontinue a putative class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations under the Securities Act.

Due to developments in jurisprudence regarding limitation periods and the inability to find a representative plaintiff for the remaining viable primary market claims, the plaintiff concluded the action was no longer viable.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action on a without-costs basis and approved the proposed notice plan.

The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but requested a 60-90 day delay of the effective date to locate new representative plaintiffs for a fresh action.

The court held that s. 29.1 is a mandatory provision and the court lacks discretion to delay the effective date of the dismissal.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction after being unable to secure financing.

The defendant vendor subsequently sold the property for a higher price and brought a summary judgment motion to retain the $70,000 deposit.

The plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture, arguing she lacked capacity due to mental health struggles when signing the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and ordered the deposit forfeited.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for the production of documents prior to a leave motion under the Securities Act, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the corporate defendant and one individual defendant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the other individual defendant, finding that the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing the motion against him and making unfounded allegations of deliberate misconduct was unreasonable and warranted sanction.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay a total of $36,603.87 in costs.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraphs of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim that sought an oppression remedy against the individual directors under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The plaintiff, a former employee suing for wrongful dismissal, alleged the directors acted oppressively by withholding vacation pay and dismissing him.

The court found that the plaintiff's pleaded reasonable expectations were held in his capacity as an employee, not as a creditor, and that the oppression remedy cannot be used as a surrogate for a wrongful dismissal claim.

The court struck the impugned paragraphs without leave to amend and awarded the defendants $8,500 in costs.

The proposed representative plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim against Maxar Technologies Inc. and its directors/officers, alleging failures to properly impair assets and recognize revenue under IFRS.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert evidence on IFRS due to lack of qualifications and impartiality, and struck portions of their reply evidence as impermissible case-splitting.

Relying on the defendants' admitted expert evidence, the court found no credible evidence that Maxar's financial statements contained material misrepresentations.

The motion for leave was dismissed as there was no reasonable possibility of success at trial, and the related certification motion was consequently dismissed.

The plaintiff in a putative class action for secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents referenced in the defendants' affidavits prior to serving his reply record.

Alternatively, the plaintiff sought to strike the portions of the affidavits referencing those documents.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the plaintiff has no right to documentary discovery at the leave stage under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, and that the proper mechanism for production is through cross-examination after the reply is served.

The court also declined to strike the affidavits, noting that hearsay is permitted on motions.

The applicant sought costs of $15,000 previously fixed by Kimmel J. relating to an injunction granted against the respondents for breaching COVID-19 public health orders.

The respondents argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding that by choosing to disobey the law rather than challenge it directly, the respondents engaged in conduct harmful to the public interest.

The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in costs.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and certification of a class proceeding against Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and its officers.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to disclose a material tax liability arising from a CRA audit regarding transfer pricing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial because the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the defendants' disclosures accurately reflected management's reasonable assessment of the tax risk.

The court also declined to certify the common law and prospectus misrepresentation claims, finding a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure and the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding regarding universal life insurance policies brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiffs sought production of 12 general categories of documents and several specific documents related to the defendant's repricing of the cost of insurance and administrative fees.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality, granting production for some requests, such as internal communications regarding policyholder communications and documents related to the 'Maximum Premium' in death spiral situations, while dismissing others that were overly broad, irrelevant, or disproportionate.

Costs of $50,000 were awarded in the cause.

The plaintiff class sought approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and honoraria for the representative plaintiff and another class member following a settlement in a privacy class action against SiriusXM.

The court approved the requested $75,000 in class counsel fees, finding them fair and reasonable given the risk undertaken and the time expended.

The court also approved $5,000 honoraria for the two class members due to their active involvement and exposure to costs risks.

However, the court reduced the requested disbursements from $75,000 to $55,657.36, rejecting class counsel's attempt to claim firm overhead as a disbursement.

The parties in a proposed class action reached a consortium agreement to seek certification of a national class in British Columbia.

A dispute arose over whether the Ontario action should be stayed permanently or conditionally.

The parties ultimately agreed to a consent order staying the action subject to further order of the court, but could not agree on costs.

The court found that both parties had credible arguments for being the successful party, as their positions were almost identical, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the plaintiff's claim, which included legally unfounded claims for Charter damages against individuals.

The defendants sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the requested amount to be fair and reasonable given the serious allegations and the lack of clarity in the plaintiff's pleadings, which increased the time required to respond.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs.

Following the dismissal of the union's application for an interim injunction against the employer's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, the employer sought partial indemnity costs of $34,146.11.

The union argued no costs should be awarded as the matter was of public interest and novel concern, or alternatively that costs should be capped at $10,000.

The court rejected the novelty argument, finding existing case law was adequate to resolve the issue.

After considering the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance of the issues, the urgent timeline, and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $27,000 payable by the union.

The plaintiff sought to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction and certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against the defendant, Mornan, in relation to an $8 million cellphone robbery.

Mornan brought a cross-motion to set aside the orders.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion, misstating the defendant's criminal charges and involvement.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or a real risk of dissipation.

The Mareva injunction and CPLs were set aside, and the defendant was awarded full indemnity costs.