Derek Ronde

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and to certify the proceeding as a class action.

The claim alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material risks regarding the potential suspension of a mining license in Guatemala due to a lack of indigenous consultation.

The court found that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial based on credible expert evidence regarding Guatemalan law and economic materiality.

The court granted leave and certified the global class action, rejecting the defendants' objections regarding the representative plaintiff and the inclusion of foreign shareholders.

The plaintiff franchisor sought costs following a successful motion for summary judgment against the defendant franchisee.

The franchise agreement contained a provision entitling the franchisor to costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the indemnity only applied to third-party claims and upheld the commercial bargain.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff franchisor brought an action against the defendant, the sole shareholder of a former corporate franchisee, to recover over $1.7 million in costs awarded to the franchisor in a prior class action commenced by the franchisee.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment relying on an indemnification provision in the franchise agreement and a personal guarantee signed by the defendant.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the defendant personally liable under both the indemnification provision and the guarantee.

The court also dismissed the defendant's cross-motion, rejecting arguments that the claim was statute-barred or previously released.

The Applicants (YESCO, Young, Wardle) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a counterclaim filed by the Respondents (226 Ontario Inc., Goldlust).

The counterclaim alleged breach of contract, breach of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), and negligent misrepresentation, primarily concerning YESCO's alleged failure to develop a "National Accounts" program as promised in the franchise agreement and disclosure document.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment on limitations grounds, finding that the "appropriate means" test under the Limitations Act, 2002, was not met as the Respondents were reasonably relying on the franchisor's ongoing ameliorative efforts.

The court also dismissed the motion for summary judgment on the substantive merits of the breach of contract and Wishart Act claims, citing significant factual disputes and the risk of duplicative findings with the main action.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claims, holding that an "entire agreement" clause in the franchise agreement barred such claims, given the commercial sophistication of the parties.

The moving party, William Watters, sought a stay of judgment pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Watters was a director and shareholder of a franchisee that operated a Cora restaurant and had given a personal guarantee of the franchisee's indebtedness.

The motion judge granted summary judgment against Watters on the guarantee in the amount of $117,000 and dismissed his counter-claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Watters' appeal but allowed Cora's cross-appeal regarding the amount owing.

Watters then sought a stay pending leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion was dismissed on the grounds that Watters failed to demonstrate a serious issue of national importance, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant, principal owner of a Cora franchise, appealed a summary judgment against him as guarantor of the franchisee's indebtedness.

The appellant sought to assert a set-off and counterclaim for damages arising from the loss of a potential franchise sale that failed to close when the franchisee refused to provide the franchisor with a release as required by the franchise agreement.

The motion judge found no basis for set-off and determined the damages claim was statute barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the franchise agreement explicitly precluded set-off, the damages claim belonged to the franchisee not the appellant, and the limitation period had commenced before the appellant commenced the action.

This decision addresses a costs award following the dismissal of a franchisee class action against Pet Valu Canada Inc. The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, adjusting senior counsel's hourly rate to align with the Grid.

The defendant's motion to hold a non-party, Robert Rodger (the plaintiff company's sole shareholder), jointly and severally liable for these costs was dismissed.

The court found that the defendant failed to satisfy the three-step test for non-party costs, specifically by not demonstrating that the plaintiff company was a "man of straw" or a sham.

The plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in costs for successfully defending the non-party liability motion, which was deducted from the defendant's overall award.

Following a partially successful Rule 21 motion to strike pleadings, the moving defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding plaintiffs argued costs should be in the cause due to mixed success and that the amount sought was excessive.

The court applied the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although success was mixed, the defendants achieved significant success by striking entire causes of action.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting that the defendants were not entirely successful.

The plaintiff franchisor brought a motion for an interim injunction to enforce restrictive covenants contained in a terminated franchise agreement.

The agreement prohibited the franchisee and its principal from operating a competing pet supply business within a specified geographic radius and from soliciting employees following termination.

Evidence showed that a competing store was opened nearby through a newly incorporated company associated with the franchisee’s spouse and that the former franchisee remained involved in its operations.

The court found a prima facie breach of the non‑competition, non‑solicitation, and post‑termination obligations, concluding that the new corporation was used to conceal the franchisee’s continued participation.

The court held that where a clear breach of a negative covenant in a franchise agreement is established, proof of irreparable harm and balance of convenience is not required, though the evidence would have satisfied those elements in any event.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim in a franchise dispute.

In an earlier endorsement, the court struck certain portions while permitting others to proceed.

This addendum clarified additional paragraphs that the parties had agreed should be struck prior to the motion argument but which were not listed in the original endorsement.

The struck portions related to unsupported claims against individual defendants, including negligence, breach of contract, statutory duties under franchise legislation, and claims for injunctive relief and lost opportunity damages.

The court confirmed that the listed portions of the Statement of Claim were struck in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim in a franchise dispute.

The plaintiffs, franchisees of a Cora restaurant, alleged misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of the Arthur Wishart Act after the franchisor opened another location nearby.

The court struck the breach of contract and negligence claims without leave to amend, finding they contradicted the express terms of the franchise agreement which granted no exclusive territory.

The misrepresentation claims were struck with leave to amend for lack of particularity.

The claims under the Arthur Wishart Act and for injunctive relief were allowed to proceed.

In a certified franchise class action concerning alleged failure to share supplier rebates, the representative plaintiff sought to set aside opt-out notices after a franchisee group launched a campaign encouraging class members to opt out.

The campaign included a coordinated telephone blitz and a public website listing franchisees who opted out while disseminating misleading information about the litigation and class counsel.

The court found that the communications exerted pressure on franchisees and undermined the fairness and integrity of the opt-out process.

Concluding that the process had been subverted by misinformation and intimidation, the court exercised its supervisory authority under the Class Proceedings Act to invalidate opt-out notices submitted after the campaign began.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs after succeeding on a motion, arguing the opposing party had been warned that their statutory rescission claim lacked merit.

The responding party argued substantial indemnity was inappropriate because the issues concerning the statutory rescission remedy under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 were novel and of public importance, and because leave to amend pleadings had been granted.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible litigation conduct and found the responding party’s conduct did not meet that threshold.

Given the novelty and public importance of the issues, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs of $12,000 were ordered payable by the responding parties.