Lauren Harper

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach brought motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examinations of two affiants and an omnibus motion to strike out various affidavits, factum paragraphs, and a sealing motion.

The court dismissed the refusals motions, finding the questions asked were beyond the narrow scope of the underlying motions (an injunction motion and a sealing motion) and were properly refused.

The court also dismissed the omnibus motion, finding no reason to strike the evidence or alter the timetable for the upcoming jurisdiction and certification motions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal concerning the enforcement of a Letter of Request (LoR) from a U.S. court.

The LoR sought confidential financial and valuation documents from Matvil Corp., a non-party, to assist Actava TV, Inc.'s damages expert in a U.S. action using a "yardstick" method.

The Court found that the application judge erred in her relevance and public policy analyses, and failed to adequately consider Canadian sovereignty.

The requested information was deemed overly broad, speculative, and not directly relevant to the material issues in the U.S. action, and its disclosure would be contrary to Canadian public policy given the sensitive nature of the data and the inadequacy of protective orders.

The plaintiffs and defendants were fertility doctors who worked together at a clinic for many years.

When the Ontario government announced public funding for fertility procedures, the defendant applied for and received funding for her new clinic, using historical data from both doctors' practices.

The plaintiff, who ultimately chose not to join the new clinic, sued for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, claiming she was cut out of the funding.

The court dismissed the claims, finding no per se or ad hoc fiduciary duty existed, as the defendant did not undertake to forsake her own interests.

The court also found a juristic reason for any enrichment, as the plaintiff autonomously chose not to join the new clinic or negotiate an agreement to access the funding.

In the alternative, damages were assessed at $2,578,050.

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.