Freya Kristjanson

The plaintiff, who was previously investigated for stock fraud and entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission, sued 67 defendants for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and other torts.

Ten motions were brought by 64 defendants to strike the pleadings and dismiss the actions.

The court dismissed the action against the Attorney General of Ontario because the malicious prosecution claim could not succeed, as the criminal proceedings were stayed pursuant to a settlement and thus not terminated in the plaintiff's favour.

The actions against the remaining moving defendants were dismissed as an abuse of process because they attempted to re-litigate facts already settled or judicially determined in prior proceedings.

Following certification of a pension-related class proceeding, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $210,000 for the certification motion.

The defendants conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed amount was excessive and opposed joint and several liability.

Applying the principles governing certification motion costs, including those articulated in Pearson v. Inco Ltd., the court determined that the plaintiff’s claimed costs were somewhat excessive and unsupported in part.

The court fixed fair and reasonable partial indemnity costs at $175,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendants were not held jointly and severally liable; instead, four groups of defendants were ordered to each pay an equal share.

Following dismissal of a civil action, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling over $48,000.

The self-represented plaintiff argued that his limited financial means and significant debt should justify declining any costs award.

The court acknowledged that a party’s ability to pay may be considered but emphasized that denying costs to a successful party is reserved for rare circumstances.

Given the repetitive nature of the litigation and the need to discourage continued re-litigation of previously rejected arguments, the court awarded reduced costs.

The court exercised discretion to grant approximately half the requested fees plus full disbursements and applicable HST.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office and related claims arising from a temporary cease trade order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The plaintiff alleged the order had expired and that subsequent prosecutions and regulatory proceedings were therefore unlawful.

The court held that the validity of the cease trade order had already been determined in multiple prior regulatory and criminal proceedings, including a guilty plea and unsuccessful appeals.

Applying issue estoppel and the doctrine of abuse of process, the court concluded that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues already conclusively determined.

The action was dismissed with prejudice.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentence imposed after guilty pleas to two offences under the Securities Act for trading securities while subject to a cease trade order and trading without registration.

He argued that his guilty pleas were not unequivocal, voluntary, or informed and therefore constituted a miscarriage of justice, and alternatively that the custodial sentence imposed was cruel and unusual or unfit.

The court held that the plea inquiry conducted by the trial judge demonstrated that the pleas were unequivocal, voluntary, and informed, and that the appellant’s mistaken personal belief that a conditional discharge might be available did not invalidate the pleas.

The court further held that the 90‑day intermittent custodial sentence and probation order were entitled to deference and were not demonstrably unfit given the need for deterrence and denunciation in securities offences.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of members of the Eastern Canada Car Carriers Pension Plan against the plan's trustees, administrative agent, and actuaries.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently or in breach of trust granted early retirement benefits when the plan had ongoing solvency issues, leading to a reduction in benefits for plan members.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in negligence and breach of trust, the class was identifiable, there were common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.