E.M. Morgan

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a $650,000 settlement in a class action arising from an apartment building fire that displaced hundreds of residents.

The fire was allegedly caused by a space heater, which the plaintiffs claimed was necessary due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate heating.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks and the meaningful compensation it provides to vulnerable class members.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements totaling $189,432.72.

The applicants, shareholders in Golden Ocean Investment Corporation, brought a motion challenging the validity of second and third mortgages registered against a property owned by the corporation.

They alleged the sole director executed the mortgages without authority as part of a fraud, and that the mortgagees were willfully blind to badges of fraud.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the mortgagees were bona fide purchasers for value who conducted proper legal due diligence.

The court held that taking a financial or underwriting risk does not constitute willful blindness to fraud, and the mortgagees were entitled to rely on the director's actual and ostensible authority.

The defendant landlord moved under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement agreement against the plaintiff tenant.

The settlement required the plaintiff to pay the reasonable costs of removing its commercial signage from the building.

After the plaintiff delayed the removal, the defendant hired its own contractor for $7,175.50, an amount nearly identical to the plaintiff's own quote.

The court found the defendant's request for reimbursement reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay the amount, plus substantial indemnity costs, noting the litigation was unnecessary.

The plaintiffs in a class action regarding syndicated mortgage loans moved for approval of the Notices and Notice Protocol for an upcoming certification and settlement approval hearing with certain settling defendants.

The court approved the proposed Notice Protocol, which involves direct notice to putative class members by email or mail via the court-appointed Notice Administrator, finding it to be effective and proportionate.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce an alleged settlement agreement between themselves, the plaintiffs, and the third parties regarding the sale of a franchise business.

The court found that the communications between counsel, including an unsigned draft Minutes of Settlement, amounted only to a framework or an agreement to agree, particularly since the third parties had not committed to purchasing the assets.

The motion to enforce the settlement and for injunctive relief against the plaintiff was dismissed.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss a defamation action arising from a podcast about a charitable organization and the plaintiff's family.

The court found that the podcast's repetition of allegations regarding the plaintiff's handling of charitable funds had substantial merit and no valid defence of responsible communication or fair comment for the host and media company.

However, the court found that the guest journalist had a valid defence of fair comment regarding her statements about a prior settlement.

The motion was dismissed for the host and media company, allowing the action to proceed against them, but granted for the guest journalist, dismissing the action against her.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction and were unsuccessful.

The successful defendants sought costs of approximately $121,882 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs were excessive and suggested an award of $40,000 to $50,000, despite their own partial indemnity costs outline totaling over $172,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding that the best evidence of reasonable expectations is the opposing side's bill.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $120,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs for the entire action after successfully moving to dismiss the proposed class action for delay.

The plaintiffs argued the costs claimed were excessive and that previous steps had already been addressed by prior costs rulings.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' response to the motion did not warrant an elevated scale.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs for the delay motion and reimbursement for mediation disbursements, fixing costs at $125,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs successfully defended a motion by the defendant to amend the certified class definition.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $88,296.33.

The defendant argued the amount was too high and suggested $45,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the plaintiffs' costs request slightly excessive due to unwarranted allegations of abuse of process, which unnecessarily protracted the matter.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 20% and awarded the plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, payable within 30 days.

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 plaintiffs in a proposed consumer class action regarding alleged engine defects in Ford vehicles sought approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Woodsford.

The court found the agreement necessary to facilitate access to justice, noting the high costs of class proceedings and expert evidence.

The agreement provided Woodsford with a 10% return on recovery, which the court found reasonable and on par with the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The motion was granted, and the funding agreement was approved.

In a dental malpractice action, the plaintiffs sought to have two experts accompany their counsel at the examination for discovery of the defendant dentist, and requested a ruling that these experts could still testify at trial.

The court permitted the plaintiffs' counsel to be accompanied by a specialist expert, but not a general dentist, to assist with highly technical subject matter.

However, the court declined to rule that the specialist could still testify at trial, warning that acting as part of the advocacy team at discovery would likely compromise the expert's objectivity and non-partisanship required for trial testimony.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $4,000,000 settlement in a certified shareholder class action against the defendant.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks and arm's length negotiations.

The court also approved a $7,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel fees of $1,200,000 (30% of the settlement) plus taxes and disbursements, finding the fee appropriately reflected the risk assumed by counsel.

Three law firms brought competing carriage motions to represent a class of shareholders of Canopy Growth Corporation in a securities misrepresentation class action.

The court evaluated the competing claims under s. 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court granted carriage to the Dziedziejko action, finding that its longer class period, which included thousands of additional shareholders based on prior financial misrepresentations, better served the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification without sacrificing efficiency.

The competing Leonard and Twidale actions were stayed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a net delay of over 40 months since the information was laid.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by the case's complexity and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and that the pandemic did not justify a delay of nearly a year beyond the Jordan ceiling, especially given institutional unresponsiveness to the applicant's inquiries for earlier trial dates.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against his daughter, brought an application seeking a declaration that a surreptitiously recorded phone call between himself and the complainant was not a 'record' under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued the recording did not contain personal information as it related to family law proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication, which touched on her emotional well-being and dignity.

The court ordered that a hearing under s. 278.93 must be held to determine the admissibility of the recording.

The appellant rock climbing facility appealed an Associate Justice's order requiring its representative to answer 16 refused questions on discovery in a personal injury action.

The questions related to hypothetical scenarios, witness statements, and the subjective interpretation of a liability waiver.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that questions requiring legal analysis, irrelevant opinions, or unfair presumptions did not need to be answered.

However, questions regarding the objective feasibility of safety measures and the subjective understanding of the waiver were ordered to be answered in writing to avoid unfair traps for a lay deponent.

Following an injunction motion where the defendants were largely successful, the defendants sought elevated costs based on the plaintiffs' post-motion conduct.

The defendants alleged the plaintiffs sent misleading correspondence to clients and lawyers claiming they had won the injunction.

The court held that post-motion conduct outside the litigation process is not a valid basis for elevated costs under Rule 57.01.

The court awarded the defendants $25,700, representing one-half of their partial indemnity costs, reflecting their divided success and the late timing of their settlement offer.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action on behalf of himself and two minor children against the lawyers and insurance company that represented the opposing party in previous litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claim for lacking a cause of action.

The plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claim prior to the hearing.

The court dismissed the entire action, including the claims purportedly brought on behalf of the minors without a litigation guardian, on consent and without costs.