Linda Lee Fuerst

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a partially successful motion by the defendants to strike the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendants sought to dismiss the entire action or strike parts of the Fresh As Amended Statement of Claim.

The court previously struck the claims of three subsidiary plaintiffs entirely and struck a specific claim of the main plaintiff with leave to amend, while dismissing the defendants' primary request to dismiss the entire action.

The court found the outcome split and, applying principles of costs, awarded the defendants 50% of their partial indemnity costs, fixed at $14,300, to reflect their partial success in narrowing the issues and removing parties.

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by Eaton Industries (Canada) Company and The Corporation of The City of London against Albert Bloom Limited (ABL).

The motions dismissed ABL's claims as statute-barred.

ABL conceded entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, alleging duplication and excessiveness, particularly given Eaton's prior cost award in a related third-party motion.

The court found the claimed costs reasonable, noting the significance of the litigation, Eaton's efforts to avoid duplication, and ABL's failure to disclose its own costs for comparison.

The appellant, a former senior compliance manager at Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank), appealed the dismissal of her application for lack of standing.

She sought to uncover and remedy alleged regulatory infractions and trust breaches by TD Bank in its mutual fund administration, claiming unjust enrichment and wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge dismissed her application, finding she lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the court's inherent jurisdiction to supervise trusts does not negate standing requirements, that the private interest standing test (requiring a personal and direct interest) was correctly applied, and that the appellant failed to plead facts establishing such standing, including as a constructive trustee.

The court also rejected the argument that public interest standing principles should inform private interest standing or that her whistleblower status conferred standing for private litigation.

The appellant objected to their civil appeal proceeding in writing, arguing the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order a written hearing over a party's objection, contrary to the *Courts of Justice Act* and *Rules of Civil Procedure*.

The court, through a Case Management Judge, dismissed the objection, affirming its broad implicit jurisdiction to manage its own process and ensure the just and efficient administration of justice, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that neither the Act nor the Rules mandate an absolute right to an oral hearing and found the appeal suitable for a written disposition.

Marian Carroll, a former TD employee, brought an application seeking an order to compel The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries (TD Waterhouse Private Investment Counsel Inc. and TD Asset Management Inc., as Trustees of the TD Mutual Funds Trust and TD Private Funds Trust) to pass their accounts, alleging misconduct and breaches of trust.

The Respondents moved to strike the application for lack of standing.

The court found that Carroll lacked private interest standing as she was not a beneficiary or unitholder and had no direct financial interest in the trusts.

The court also rejected public interest standing, concluding that the application was not a reasonable and effective means to bring the matter before the court, given other available avenues for beneficiaries and regulatory bodies.

The Respondents' motion to strike was granted, and Carroll's application was dismissed with costs.

The Plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement, a distribution plan, an honorarium for representative plaintiffs, and Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The class action, initiated in 2012, involved common law misrepresentation and statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act for secondary market misrepresentations against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and its officers/directors.

After extensive litigation, including interlocutory motions, discovery, and two mediations, a settlement of $110 million was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the complexities and risks of the litigation.

The distribution plan and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were also approved.

Class Counsel's fee request of $25.25 million (22.95% of the settlement) plus disbursements and taxes was approved, recognizing the significant risk undertaken and the results achieved.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting a stay of proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds.

The motion judge had characterized the claim as one for oppression under the Canada Business Corporations Act and found that Ontario was forum non conveniens because the core dispute involved shareholders' dissatisfaction with internal management decisions of a Quebec-based company.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred by misconstruing their claim as purely oppression and failing to recognize a common law claim for fraudulent misrepresentation with connections to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's characterization of the claim or his forum non conveniens analysis.

Following certification of a securities class action, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the leave and certification motions.

The moving parties sought more than $1.18 million in fees and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and historical benchmarking when assessing certification-motion costs under Rule 57.01(1).

After adjusting excessive hourly rates and disbursements, and considering historical averages for comparable certification motions, the court fixed costs at $467,234 payable forthwith, with an additional $100,000 in disbursements payable in the cause.

In a securities class action concerning alleged misrepresentations in the prospectus and offering materials for a company’s 2010 initial public offering, the representative plaintiff moved for court approval of a settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided for a global payment of USD $15,250,000 to resolve claims by Canadian and U.S. investors, with a coordinated cross‑border approval process and a shared claims administration.

The court applied the established criteria for approval of class action settlements, including the likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel’s recommendations, the reasonableness of the terms, and the absence of objections.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved both the settlement and the plan of allocation, as well as class counsel’s requested contingency fees and litigation expenses.

In a securities class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act, the plaintiffs sought certification for settlement purposes against certain underwriters, approval of three settlements totalling approximately $10.85 million, approval of counsel fees, and approval of a proposed plan of allocation.

The court held that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved them, along with counsel fees and the appointment of an administrator.

However, the court rejected the parties’ proposed distribution plan because it excluded class members who purchased shares on the day of the corrective disclosure from any compensation.

Exercising its authority to determine the plan of allocation, the court varied the distribution plan to include those purchasers and approved the modified plan as fair and reasonable.