Julia Webster

The plaintiffs brought a class action against mutual fund managers for allowing certain investors to engage in frequent short-term trading (market timing/time zone arbitrage), which allegedly diluted the returns of long-term unitholders.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the funds and breached the standard of care by failing to prevent, and actively facilitating, frequent short-term trading contrary to their prospectuses.

However, the court dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding no bad faith or dishonesty.

The matter was directed to proceed to a damages trial.

The plaintiffs brought a bankruptcy application against the defendant for an alleged indebtedness of approximately US$32.4 million for unpaid wholesale apparel.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss the application, arguing there was a bona fide dispute over the debt due to the plaintiffs' alleged breaches of a Master Sourcing Agreement, which contained an exclusive forum clause designating New York courts.

The court found a bona fide dispute existed and that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the contractual claims due to the forum selection clause.

The bankruptcy application was stayed on terms, including a requirement for the defendant to pay funds into court, pending the resolution of the New York proceeding.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike portions of the Defendant's Statement of Defence in a defamation action, arguing that certain allegations regarding the Plaintiffs' organizational governance were irrelevant.

The Defendant cross-moved for a further affidavit of documents and leave to amend his Statement of Defence, asserting the allegations provided context for his defence of justification and qualified privilege.

The court granted the motions in part, striking specific paragraphs detailing the Defendant's complaints against the Plaintiffs' national office as irrelevant to the defamation claim's core issues, but allowing other amendments and requiring the Plaintiffs to provide a further affidavit of documents.

The court emphasized that while the context of conflict was relevant for reprisal allegations, the veracity of specific governance complaints was not.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Disallowance issued by the trustee in bankruptcy of MF Global Canada Co. The appellant claimed the net positive balance of his futures account either on the day before the bankruptcy or on the date of bankruptcy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the decline in the account's value prior to bankruptcy was due to market forces, not a breach by the bankrupt.

Furthermore, the appellant had ignored margin calls exceeding his account balance, and the trustee was entitled to set off the appellant's debt against any amount owed.

The defendant brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion and the plaintiffs sought costs of $37,610.84 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to award costs to the plaintiffs, finding that the summary judgment motion was reasonably brought and the issues of damages and limitation periods would still need to be determined at trial.

The court ordered costs in the cause.

The plaintiff sued his investment advisors, actuaries, and lawyers for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they misled him into commuting his teacher's pension to establish an Individual Pension Plan (IPP) that risked revocation by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The actuaries and lawyers brought motions for summary judgment arguing the claims were statute-barred and the plaintiff suffered no damages, while the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

After the plaintiff discontinued the action against all defendants except the lawyers, the court dismissed both the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and the damages branch of the lawyers' motion, finding genuine issues for trial that were not appropriate for summary determination.

The defendant investment firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs, who were victims of their former investment advisor's Ponzi scheme, argued they did not discover their claims against the firm until the advisor's fraud was exposed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiffs, as allegedly unsophisticated investors, knew or ought to have known of their claims earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence.