Laura Kathleen Fric

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim for fraudulent misrepresentation as statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and to dismiss the proposed class action.

The plaintiff had commenced a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentations following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim by 2010, but did not plead fraudulent misrepresentation until 2019.

The court held it was plain and obvious the claim was statute barred and struck it.

As the plaintiff was disqualified from being a representative plaintiff for the remaining truncated statutory claims, the entire action was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs of $35,000 all-inclusive after successfully bringing a motion to stay the action.

The plaintiff opposed the quantum, arguing it was excessive.

The court found the defendants were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and previous costs awards in similar litigation involving the plaintiff, the court awarded the defendants costs in the amount of $17,500 all-inclusive.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to state a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

The court struck out the fresh as amended statement of claim, finding that the claims (breach of privacy, trespass, conspiracy) were legally deficient, particularly due to absolute privilege for statements made in legal proceedings and a lack of material facts.

The court further found the action to be an abuse of process, largely driven by a non-lawyer, Gary Curtis, who had a history of vexatious litigation against the defendant.

Leave to amend the claim was denied, and the action was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the defendant due to the reprehensible conduct of the litigation.

The plaintiff sought to vary or set aside previous interlocutory orders made by Masters Short and Jolley, including orders setting aside a noting in default, refusing representation by a non-lawyer agent, and directing the Registrar not to note the defendant in default.

The plaintiff's motion was brought under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court found to be an improper use as the preconditions were not met and the time for appeal had expired.

The court also reviewed the merits of the plaintiff's grounds for challenging the orders and found no reviewable error by the Masters.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs.

Indigenous peoples from Ecuador obtained a US$9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation for environmental devastation caused by oil exploration.

After failing to enforce the judgment in the United States due to findings of fraud by the plaintiffs' counsel, they sought to enforce it in Ontario against Chevron Canada, a seventh-level subsidiary.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding that Chevron Canada's shares and assets were not exigible under the Execution Act and that the corporate veil should not be pierced.

The appellants appealed, arguing both that the Execution Act permitted seizure of Chevron Canada's assets and that the corporate veil should be pierced in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award, recognizing the litigation as public interest litigation.

The appellant sought to bring a class action against BP for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act.

The motion judge found that eleven of fourteen alleged misrepresentations were statute-barred under the three-year limitation period in section 138.14 of the Act.

The appellant argued that section 138.3(6), which permits the court to treat multiple misrepresentations as a single misrepresentation, should extend the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 138.3(6) does not modify the event-triggered limitation period and was enacted to limit, not expand, liability.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Hydro One Networks on behalf of customers who were allegedly overcharged due to a malfunctioning customer information system (CIS) implemented in 2013.

The plaintiff advanced claims for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment, seeking $100 million in aggregate damages.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues lacked commonality because the alleged systemic negligence produced a multiplicity of errors requiring individual inquiries.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as individual issues trials would be inevitable and the Ontario Energy Board's complaint process offered a superior alternative for resolving the billing disputes.

The Ecuadorian plaintiffs sought to enforce a judgment of approximately 9.5 billion dollars from an Ecuadorian court against Chevron Corporation and its subsidiary, Chevron Canada Limited, in Ontario.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada's affirmation of Ontario's jurisdiction to hear the enforcement action, the motion judge granted summary judgment in favor of Chevron and Chevron Canada, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims on the basis of separate corporate personality.

The plaintiffs appealed.

Chevron and Chevron Canada brought a motion for security for costs.

The court held that security for costs was warranted because the plaintiffs were ordinarily resident outside Ontario, had not demonstrated impecuniosity, and had not established a good chance of success on appeal.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that a new approach to security for costs should apply to foreign judgment enforcement actions, finding that comity does not require foreign litigants to be treated more favorably than domestic litigants.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that the plaintiff's proposed class action claims for secondary market misrepresentations under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act were statute-barred.

The court found that 11 of the 14 alleged misrepresentations occurred more than three years before the action was commenced and were therefore statute-barred under s. 138.14.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that s. 138.3(6) could save the claims by treating them as a single continuous misrepresentation.

However, the court found that the remaining three misrepresentation claims were not necessarily statute-barred, as the plaintiff had served a notice of motion for leave before the limitation period expired, allowing for potential reliance on the nunc pro tunc doctrine.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision that refused to strike out several paragraphs of the defendant's statement of defence.

The underlying action involved the recognition and enforcement of a $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment.

The defendant pleaded defences of fraud, public policy, and lack of natural justice, alleging the foreign judgment was ghostwritten and obtained through bribery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the pleaded defences were recognized in law and not plainly and obviously bound to fail.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a US$9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron Corporation and its seventh-level indirect subsidiary, Chevron Canada Limited.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against Chevron Canada, arguing it was a separate legal entity not liable for the judgment.

The plaintiffs argued Chevron Canada's assets were exigible under the Execution Act or that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against Chevron Canada, finding the Execution Act does not override corporate separateness and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil absent allegations of wrongdoing by the subsidiary.

The plaintiffs also moved to strike Chevron's statement of defence.

The court struck defences relating to retroactive legislation and international law, but permitted defences alleging the Ecuadorian judgment was procured by fraud, bribery, and a denial of natural justice to proceed to trial.

The moving party sought to lift a stay of proceedings previously granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Following the stay, the moving party's attempt to pursue a class action in the United States for pre-explosion misrepresentations was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the responding party conceded the claim was governed by Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal found these new developments constituted facts arising after the order that justified lifting the stay to avoid an injustice, allowing the moving party to proceed with the claim in Ontario.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing its motion to stay or dismiss a proposed Ontario class proceeding for secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The respondent, an Ontario resident, had purchased the issuer's shares on the New York Stock Exchange, and a parallel securities proceeding based on substantially the same alleged misrepresentations was already underway in the United States.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the alleged statutory tort was committed in Ontario where disclosure documents were required to reach Ontario shareholders.

However, applying comity-based forum non conveniens principles, the court concluded Ontario should decline jurisdiction over foreign-exchange claims because the U.S. and U.K. regimes tie jurisdiction to the place of trading, parallel proceedings already existed, and Ontario jurisdiction would be opportunistic in light of negligible Canadian trading.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Royal Trust for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence regarding an option agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the option agreement was unambiguous and had become null and void after the sale of the business.

The Court also agreed that Royal Trust acted prudently in selling the estate assets and that summary judgment was appropriate under the Hryniak framework.

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from selling an independent medical examinations business to a competitor.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant breached a contractual duty of good faith by failing to negotiate a sale with them and by not offering a right to match the competitor's offer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the defendant had fulfilled its limited obligation to offer a first right of negotiation and was not required to provide a right to match.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The appellant, Inco Limited, appealed a costs order awarding it $1,766,000 following its successful defence of a class action at the Court of Appeal.

Inco argued it was entitled to over $5.3 million and that the trial judge erred by reducing its legal fees and applying a 50 per cent discount under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's determination that the environmental tort class action raised novel points of law and involved matters of public interest.

The court upheld the trial judge's methodical and reasonable costs analysis.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a class action and approval of a settlement agreement regarding the defendant's sale of daily deal vouchers with allegedly illegal expiration dates.

The court found that the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act were met and that the settlement, which established a $535,000 fund, was fair and reasonable.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $235,000, noting that while pre-allocated fees require strict scrutiny, the amount was justified given the significant non-monetary value of the settlement to the class.

An Ontario resident brought a proposed securities class action against a U.K. issuer alleging secondary market misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The defendant moved to stay the action in part, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction over claims of investors who purchased securities on foreign exchanges and that the matter should proceed in U.S. or U.K. courts.

The court held that the statutory cause of action under s. 138.3 constitutes a statutory tort presumptively connected to Ontario where an Ontario investor is deemed to have relied on the misrepresentation.

The legislation did not restrict claims to purchases on Ontario exchanges, and the defendant failed to rebut the presumptive connecting factor.

The court further found the defendant did not establish that foreign courts were clearly more appropriate forums.

The plaintiff class, comprising salaried and executive retirees of General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL), brought a class action alleging that GMCL breached its contracts by reducing post-retirement health care and life insurance benefits.

On motions for partial summary judgment, the court held that the reservation of rights clauses in the benefit documents for salaried employees were ambiguous and did not clearly permit GMCL to reduce benefits after the employees had retired.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, including contra proferentem and the duty of good faith, the court found GMCL breached its contracts with the salaried retirees, including new hires and early retirees.

However, the court found that the reservation of rights clause for executive retirees was clear and unambiguous, allowing GMCL to reduce their benefits.

In a class proceeding concerning post‑retirement benefits, the defendant brought a motion to strike certain financial statements from affidavit evidence.

The issue was whether the employer’s 1994 and 1995 financial statements qualified as “additional common documents” because they were widely distributed to class members and respected post‑retirement benefits.

The court held that the statements were widely distributed because annual reports were regularly provided or made available to employees.

The court also interpreted the term “respecting” broadly, finding that financial statements referring to post‑retirement benefit liabilities satisfied the requirement.

The motion to strike the documents was dismissed.