Kimberley Potter

The applicant appealed an arbitrator's decision granting a confidentiality order and permanent injunction against the applicant and its counsel for publishing a press release linking to an arbitral award.

The court determined the standard of review was reasonableness.

The court found the arbitrator did not err in interpreting the arbitration agreement's confidentiality provisions, in excluding certain extrinsic evidence, in finding a breach of confidentiality, or in granting a permanent injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants, an auditing firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $5 billion negligence claim arising from their audits of feeder funds that invested in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors failed to discover the fraud, causing the funds to remain invested and suffer massive losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove any damages.

Applying the plaintiffs' own damages formula, the court concluded that the funds actually benefited from the delayed discovery of the fraud due to net withdrawals and the exclusion of fictitious profits and unasserted liabilities.

The defendants moved for security for costs in a $5 billion auditor negligence action arising from audits connected to investments with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities.

The plaintiffs, investment funds in liquidation, did not dispute entitlement to security but contested the amount sought.

The court considered estimates for pleadings, discovery planning, document review, examinations for discovery, and disbursements, including expert evidence.

Applying Rule 56.01 and assessing reasonable partial indemnity rates, the court found the plaintiffs’ proposed figures unrealistic given the complexity and scale of the litigation.

Substantial security for costs was ordered to cover work through the first stage of examinations for discovery.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.