Kate McGrann

The applicants sought an order to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a New York Court in a U.S. securities class action, compelling production of documents from the respondent, a non-party Ontario corporation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the requests were overly broad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome.

The court applied the Friction Division guideposts and granted the application on a narrowed basis, restricting the temporal scope of the production and establishing a staged process to manage the costs and burden of electronic document review.

The law firm Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP (CMB) brought a motion seeking an order to be appointed as representative counsel for approximately 3,000 investors in the receivership of Crystal Wealth Management Systems Inc. The court-appointed Receiver, Grant Thornton Limited, and the Ontario Securities Commission opposed the motion, arguing that it would be duplicative of the Receiver's role and would result in unnecessary professional fees.

The court dismissed CMB's motion, finding that the Receiver was already adequately protecting and advancing the investors' interests, and that appointing representative counsel would add unnecessary expense without good reason.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award finding it breached contractual and fiduciary duties by failing to redeem the respondent's hedge fund investment.

The arbitrator awarded $1.3 million in damages, rejecting the applicant's argument that damages should be assessed based on an alternative, less onerous method of performance.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the contract as mandating only one method of performance and that the applicant's challenges raised issues of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, a TD mobile mortgage manager and TD Bank, for negligent misrepresentation regarding a $120,000 investment in a debenture.

The plaintiff claimed the manager assured him the investment was safe and that he assumed TD was involved.

The court found that the manager's statements were honest opinions given "friend to friend" based on personal experience, and did not constitute negligent misrepresentation.

The court also found no reasonable basis for the plaintiff to assume TD was involved, dismissing the vicarious liability claim against TD.

Furthermore, the court held the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the claims against the manager and the vicarious liability claim against TD were dismissed.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

In a group of related civil proceedings involving multiple plaintiffs and the same defendants, the court considered a request concerning the deadline for filing third party claims.

Following a prior order, the parties jointly sought an extension of time to file all third party claims.

The court granted the request on consent and extended the deadline to September 25, 2015.

The endorsement reflects a procedural timetable adjustment rather than a substantive determination of the underlying claims.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining an anonymous online poster from publishing defamatory statements on an internet message board about the plaintiff, the CEO of a publicly traded company.

The impugned posts alleged fraud, stock manipulation, offshore accounts, and other misconduct.

The court found the statements were manifestly defamatory, unsupported by any justification, and likely to cause irreparable harm given the wide dissemination and permanence of internet publications.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the alleged defamation caused reputational harm in the province.

An interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from publishing further defamatory statements.