Christopher Horkins

The defendant law firm in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion under Rules 30.03 and 30.04 for the production of unredacted copies of the plaintiffs' legal invoices and docket entries.

The plaintiffs had redacted entries relating to advice given on the current action, claiming privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the redacted entries were not relevant to the action, were expressly excluded from the parties' discovery plan waiver, and were presumptively protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal order that dismissed their product liability action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action arose from an incident where the plaintiff was allegedly struck by a defective liftgate on a minivan.

The court applied the Reid factors using a contextual approach to determine if the dismissal should be set aside.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for over two years of cumulative delay and that the dismissal was not due to mere inadvertence.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to the degradation of physical evidence (the prop rods) and fading witness memories.

The motion to set aside the dismissal order was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a putative shareholders' class action for secondary market liability under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant made material misrepresentations regarding a cannabis facility build-out project and joint venture, which were later publicly corrected, causing a significant drop in share price.

The court found the action was brought in good faith and that there was a reasonable possibility of success at trial, rejecting the defendant's expert economic evidence that the market had already absorbed the news.

Leave to proceed was granted.

Class counsel moved for approval of an interim fee award and disbursements following a $250,000 settlement with the Bank of Montreal defendants in a class action.

The court reviewed the requested fees of $62,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $119,800.83, plus taxes.

Applying the factors for assessing the reasonableness of class counsel fees, the court found the request fair and reasonable and approved the fee award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement with the Bank of Montreal (BMO) defendants in a class action alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settlement amount was $250,000.

The court found that the case against BMO was significantly weaker than against other defendants, as BMO's trading operations accounted for less than 1% of the market and no regulatory findings had been made against it.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved the settlement agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes against a group of defendant banks in a proceeding alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The settling defendants agreed to pay $250,000.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and approved the settlement agreement, the notices, and the plan of dissemination.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order requiring a private corporation to disclose documents to a bankruptcy trustee and requiring two directors to submit to oral examinations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee required the information to value the bankrupt's shares in the corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no prima facie merit to the argument that the trustee's powers under s. 164 did not extend to such disclosure, and concluding that an appeal would unduly hinder the progress of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Registrar's order requiring a family farming corporation to disclose documents and its directors to submit to examinations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee sought the information to value the bankrupt's shares in the corporation.

The appellants argued the trustee's access should be limited to shareholder rights under the OBCA.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trustee is entitled to information relevant to valuing the shares and that there is no conflict between the BIA and directors' duties under the OBCA.

The court granted the trustee's cross-appeal, holding the Registrar lacked authority to order written interrogatories in lieu of an oral examination under s. 163 of the BIA, and awarded costs to the trustee.

In a certified franchise class action alleging price maintenance and breaches of franchise law, the representative plaintiffs sought court approval of a proposed settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided $275,000 to reimburse class counsel disbursements and required class members to release all claims relating to the purchase, sale, distribution, promotion, or marketing of supplies.

The court held that although the settlement outcome was otherwise reasonable given the weak prospects of success and litigation risks, the release clause was overbroad because it could bar future claims unrelated to the existing alleged misconduct.

The judge found that approving such a release would unfairly deprive class members of potential future claims.

The court therefore refused to approve the settlement.

A bankruptcy trustee brought a motion to set aside the bankrupt’s automatic discharge after failing, through inadvertence, to send the statutory notices of impending discharge to creditors.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to invalidate an automatic discharge arising from such procedural irregularity.

Applying prior authorities and the principles under s. 187(9) of the Act, the court held that the failure to provide notice constituted an irregularity in a bankruptcy proceeding causing potential injustice to creditors who were deprived of the opportunity to oppose the discharge.

Evidence indicated unresolved issues concerning the bankrupt’s disclosure obligations and potential surplus income, suggesting that a discharge hearing could lead to a materially different result.

The court therefore set aside the automatic discharge and directed the trustee to issue proper notices to creditors.