Rahool P. Agarwal

The plaintiff and several defendants brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves allegations by the plaintiff that the defendants engaged in a plan to cause financial harm and confer unlawful benefits upon their departure from the organization.

The court applied principles of relevance and proportionality, ordering the parties to answer certain questions and fulfill specific undertakings while upholding refusals for questions that were irrelevant, disproportionate, or improper.

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 plaintiff sought approval of a $22.25 million settlement in a class action alleging unpaid overtime by the defendant trucking company.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of proving systemic liability and the range of damages calculated by experts.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 30% contingency fee, noting that while third-party funding arrangements must now be considered in assessing legal fees under the amended Class Proceedings Act, it would not retroactively adjust fees in this case.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add three additional representative plaintiffs during a certification hearing for a class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims.

The court found that the original plaintiff, Nordik Windows Inc., had an arguable cause of action and was a suitable representative plaintiff.

The court also found that the three proposed additional plaintiffs—Hangar9 Studios Inc., Cash and Carry Inc., and Real Food for Real Kids Inc.—had viable causes of action and met the requirements under s. 5(1)(e) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was fully certified with all four as representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions against Aviva Insurance for the blanket denial of coverage for COVID-19-related business loss claims.

The claims focused on 'restricted access' and 'negative publicity' coverage provisions in Aviva's standard-form policies.

The court found that the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting the commonality of the standard-form policies and the identical denial letters.

The two Lerners Actions were certified, and the Nordik Action was conditionally certified pending a motion regarding the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring the defendants to pay $1,848,000 into court.

The funds were originally held in escrow pursuant to an asset purchase agreement but were released to the defendants after the plaintiff failed to serve a loss notice on the escrow agent before the contractual deadline.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiff's claim to the specific fund, as the defendants did not improperly direct the release of the funds and the escrow agent acted in accordance with the agreement.

The appellant appealed a decision implying a contractual obligation to disclose financial information to the respondent, enabling the respondent to determine whether to exercise an option to acquire up to a 20% interest in a limited partnership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the business efficacy test.

The Court held that the option right would be illusory without the implied right to disclosure, and that implying such a term was necessary to give business efficacy to the parties' agreement.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta involving a truck owned and operated by the Alberta respondents.

She sued the respondents in Ontario, along with her Ontario automobile insurer for uninsured/underinsured coverage.

The respondents successfully moved to stay the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellant argued her insurance contract was a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurance contract had no nexus to the respondents and could not bootstrap jurisdiction over them.

The appellant challenged an order striking pleaded claims against an individual corporate principal and dismissing an unjust enrichment claim on a pleadings motion.

The Court of Appeal held that it was not plain and obvious that the statutory claims under s. 131 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the claim under s. 10 of the Partnerships Act, and the pleaded breach of contract and misrepresentation claims against the individual respondent could not succeed.

Applying the unjust enrichment benefit analysis from Peel, the court held the claim was properly struck against the individual respondent personally for lack of material facts showing a tangible benefit, but could proceed against the remaining respondents based on unpaid services and business expenses.

The appeal was allowed in part and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellant, Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, appealed an order declaring that a claim brought by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board in a proposed class action was not a 'Released Claim' under a 2008 Comprehensive Agreement.

The 2008 Agreement settled claims between tobacco companies and government entities regarding tobacco smuggling.

The Court of Appeal held that while the claims might fall within the definition of 'Released Claims', the Board was acting as an agent for tobacco producers to enforce contracts, not as an agent for the Crown.

Therefore, the Board was not a 'Releasing Entity' under the agreement, and the claims were not released.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyers for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of loyalty, alleging the lawyers facilitated a Ponzi scheme and failed to disclose the plaintiffs' interests during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation while representing other clients.

The defendant lawyers moved to strike portions of the statement of claim, arguing their statements and omissions before the OSC were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it is not plain and obvious that absolute privilege immunizes a lawyer from a client's claim for breach of loyalty based on statements made while representing different clients in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that a restrictive covenant in a franchise agreement was not ambiguous to the point of being unenforceable as a pure question of law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the provision was not facially ambiguous when read in the context of the entire agreement, and that any factual ambiguities would need to be determined at trial.