Paul J. Bates

Following a decision granting leave to proceed with secondary market misrepresentation claims and certifying a class action, the parties disputed the settlement of the order, the certification of the primary market subclass's financial outlook claim, and costs.

The court held that the primary market subclass's claim remained certified, as importing a merits-based leave test into the certification criteria was improper.

The court settled the order in accordance with the plaintiff's draft, declined to clarify findings of fact, and awarded the plaintiff $950,000 in costs based on overall success.

On a Rule 20 motion for summary judgment in a proposed class proceeding, the court held that s. 68(1) offering statement requirements under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act apply to primary issuances and sales by a credit union, not to inter-member share transfers shown on this record.

Because the plaintiff and proposed class members acquired shares through transfers or dividend issuances that did not engage the statutory cause of action in s. 75(3), there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant regulator's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was granted.

On an uncertified proposed class proceeding arising from a pension fund’s loss on an FTX investment, the moving party sought leave to discontinue under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with agreed non-monetary disclosure commitments in the plan’s annual reporting and payment of class counsel fees and disbursements from the fund.

The court applied the discontinuance approval framework, including whether class interests would be prejudiced by abandonment of a viable claim and whether the result was a practical resolution in light of litigation risk.

The court found the class would not benefit from continued litigation on the record, accepted that the settlement terms were objectively reasonable, and held that non-monetary relief could constitute a positive settlement outcome.

The court also approved the reduced fee amount and disbursements as reasonable.

In a securities class action arising from an issuer's restated financial statements and revised guidance, the court considered leave under the Securities Act for secondary market claims, certification under the Class Proceedings Act, and the defendants' summary judgment motion on limitation issues affecting the primary market claim.

The court held there was a reasonable possibility of success on claims based on conceded financial misstatements, omission of intersegment sales from the IPO prospectus, and related officer certifications, but not on alleged misstatements in the issuer's financial outlook because the assumptions were reasonable when made and the plaintiff had not shown materiality.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with the court rejecting proposed subclass restrictions tied to Canadian underwriters and post-correction shareholding.

On the limitations issue, the court held that the Securities Act ousts common-law discoverability for the 180-day period and requires actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim.

Summary judgment was dismissed because the record did not establish that the representative plaintiff had actual knowledge outside the limitation period.

The plaintiff discontinued a proposed class action against the defendant, a discount brokerage firm, after the certification motion was adjourned.

The defendant sought costs for defending itself against the certification motion.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and should be apportioned among the multiple defendants originally sued.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced by approximately 25% to account for access to justice concerns in class action litigation.

This endorsement addresses two production issues in a proposed class action for misrepresentation under the Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff sought production of (1) a podcast audio or transcript quoted by defendant Michael Novogratz in his affidavit, and (2) documents underlying a chart referenced by defendant Alex Ioffe.

The court ordered production of the portion of the podcast transcript quoted in the affidavit, but declined to order production of the underlying documents for the chart, finding such requests more appropriate for cross-examination.

The court also set out a timetable for the upcoming motions and clarified the process for resolving refusals.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement regarding trailing commissions paid by TD Asset Management Inc. to discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged improper payments and misrepresentations.

The court approved a $70.25 million settlement for the class, along with the proposed notice plan, distribution protocol, and appointment of an administrator.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, an interim payment to the litigation funder, release of the funder's security, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The proposed plaintiff, Frank Losak, sought leave to commence a class proceeding against the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) and its CEO, Mark White, alleging misrepresentations related to the sale of Pace Savings & Credit Union securities while Pace was under FSRA's administration.

The court determined that leave was required under the Liquidation Order.

It granted leave for the claim against FSRA, finding a viable cause of action not barred by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act or the Limitations Act, and that it would not undermine the liquidation.

However, leave was denied for the claim against Mark White due to statutory immunity under the FSRA Act, as no particulars of bad faith were provided.

The statement of claim against FSRA was allowed to be issued nunc pro tunc to February 28, 2024.

This decision addresses the admissibility of two expert reports submitted by the plaintiff in a proposed class action certification motion.

The defendants sought to strike the reports, arguing lack of objectivity and improper scope.

The court ruled that the report from an investor in the defendant company was inadmissible due to a direct economic conflict of interest, despite the expert's disclosure and offer to opt out of class compensation.

The report from a lawyer specializing in securities and corporate law was deemed admissible, as it provided necessary and helpful expertise on complex regulatory standards, but its concluding paragraphs opining on the ultimate issue of misrepresentation were ordered redacted as they usurped the court's role.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, seeking leave to represent a class in a securities class action, served an affidavit from a lawyer, Lon Michael Kirsh.

The defendants, Anaergia Inc., Andrew Benedek, and Hani El-Kaissi, moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

After the plaintiff served a revised affidavit removing opinions, the defendants moved again to strike it, alleging irrelevance and immateriality.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the affidavit contained permissible observations of voluminous public filings rather than inadmissible opinions.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs thrown away to the defendants due to the initial inadmissible affidavit.

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against pharmaceutical companies for negligently manufacturing valsartan, alleging contamination with NDMA and NDEA, which are potential carcinogens.

The claim was for damages related to an increased risk of cancer, costs of medical services and monitoring, refunds for drugs, and psychological damages.

The motion judge dismissed the certification, finding no viable cause of action based on concrete injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that claims for genotoxic injury (molecular changes without perceptible effect), psychological harm (not meeting the 'serious and prolonged' or 'ordinary fortitude' thresholds), and pure economic loss (as the product was discarded and not imminently dangerous) were not compensable in tort.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims for battery, consumer protection breaches, Competition Act breaches, and unjust enrichment, concluding that the pleadings did not disclose viable causes of action or meet commonality criteria for certification.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Celexa.

The proposed class action alleged a failure to warn that the drug is or may be a teratogen causing congenital malformations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Class Proceedings Judge's findings that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality due to the hundreds of potential congenital malformations with unique etiologies, and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues would overwhelm any common issues.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed securities class action under the Ontario Securities Act, alleging misrepresentation by the defendants regarding the value of Cronos Group Inc. shares.

The defendants opposed certification and brought a forum non conveniens motion to stay claims of non-Canadian shareholders who purchased shares on the NASDAQ exchange, arguing these shareholders were already covered by a parallel U.S. class action.

The court granted certification for the proposed class, including U.S. shareholders, and dismissed the defendants' forum non conveniens motion, emphasizing Ontario's jurisdiction and the policy of access to justice.

The appellant, a representative plaintiff in a class action, appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against Olympia Trust Company.

The action alleged that Olympia Trust, as a custodial trustee for syndicated mortgage loans (SMLs) held in registered savings accounts, breached trust and fiduciary duties by failing to ensure the SMLs were "qualified investments" under the Income Tax Act.

The motion judge found it plain and obvious that the claims for breach of trust and fiduciary duty could not succeed, and that other certification criteria were not met.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the Income Tax Act provisions and the Declaration of Trust did not impose the extensive "gatekeeping" or "watchdog" duties alleged by the appellant on Olympia Trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against seven discount brokers, alleging that their receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions prior to the 2022 prohibition was illegal.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the 'some evidence' requirement to show that the practice contravened applicable Canadian securities law.

The evidence filed by the plaintiffs themselves demonstrated that the practice, while controversial, was not illegal before the regulatory amendments took effect.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the antidepressant Celexa, alleging it is a teratogen that causes congenital malformations.

The plaintiffs proposed common issues regarding general causation (whether Celexa is or may be teratogenic) and duty to warn.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues failed to satisfy the commonality requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, as they would not advance the litigation without individual trials for each specific congenital malformation.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the overwhelming number of complex individual issues.

The appellant sought leave to bring a class action against Cronos Group Inc. and others for alleged misrepresentations in public filings.

The motion judge dismissed the leave and certification motions, characterizing the claim as alleging thousands of separate misrepresentations and finding insufficient evidence of individual materiality.

The Court of Appeal found this characterization erroneous, holding that the claim alleged one central misrepresentation regarding inflated revenues.

The Court determined there was a reasonable possibility of success, given the admitted misrepresentations, subsequent corrections, and share price drops, despite conflicting expert evidence on causation.

The appeal was allowed, leave granted, and the certification issue remitted to the Superior Court.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against a trust company that acted as the trustee for registered savings accounts through which class members invested in syndicated mortgages.

The syndicated mortgages, promoted by a third-party developer, failed, resulting in significant losses.

The plaintiff alleged the trust company breached trust, fiduciary, contractual, and common law duties by failing to ensure the mortgages were fully secured and qualified investments under the Income Tax Act.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as the trust company did not undertake the alleged gatekeeper duties.

The court also found the proposed omnibus class action failed the common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria.