Linda M. Plumpton

The applicant target company sought specific performance of a share purchase agreement after the respondent purchaser refused to close, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purchaser alleged breaches of the Material Adverse Effect (MAE), ordinary course, amortization event, and access to information covenants.

The court found that while the pandemic threatened earnings, it fell within the MAE's emergency carveout and did not disproportionately affect the target.

The target's pandemic responses, including branch access changes and accounting adjustments, were within the ordinary course of business for an economic downturn.

The court ordered specific performance of the agreement.

In a national class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant bank brought a motion for a class-wide limitations order to time-bar claims falling outside provincial limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reasonable discoverability of the claims—specifically whether taking legal action was appropriate—required individualized assessments.

Evidence of power imbalances, fear of reprisal, and reasonable reliance on the bank's misrepresentations rebutted the statutory presumption of discoverability on a class-wide basis.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the limitations defence entirely was also dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion requesting that its summary judgment motion be heard before the plaintiff's motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding the calculation of long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motions should be heard together or certification first.

The court applied the factors from Canon v. Funds for Canada Foundation and determined that hearing both motions at the same time would be the fairest and most efficient manner of proceeding, avoiding potential delays and multiple appeals.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.

This decision addresses cross-motions for summary judgment on damages issues in a class action for unpaid overtime.

The court previously found the defendant bank liable for breaching federal labour law regarding overtime.

In this stage, the court considered common issues related to unjust enrichment, remedies, and punitive damages, and crucially, whether to add aggregate damages as a common issue.

The court found that while the defendant was enriched, restitutionary relief was not available due to the breach of contract claim.

Punitive damages were denied as the bank's conduct, though careless, did not meet the "malicious, oppressive and high-handed" standard.

Most significantly, the court certified aggregate damages as a new common issue, finding a "reasonable possibility" that the plaintiff's proposed methodology, based on time-stamped computer data, could determine damages without individual proof, despite previous appellate court reservations about sampling.

The determination of the final aggregate damages quantum was adjourned pending expert reports and data access.

The appellant sought to sell 15 gas stations in Ontario and Quebec, requiring the assignment of leases and credit/debit card agreements.

The respondent refused to consent to the assignments unless the appellant agreed to a five-year contract extension.

The application judge found the refusal unreasonable for the leases but dismissed the application entirely due to Quebec choice of law and forum selection clauses in some leases.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the judge erred by not granting relief for the Ontario stations, by failing to apply the strong cause test to depart from the forum selection clauses, and by not finding that the duty of good faith precluded the respondent from unreasonably withholding consent to the credit/debit card agreements.

The appellants sought to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause in their standard form services agreement, requiring the respondent to resolve any dispute through mediation and then arbitration in the Netherlands under ICC Rules at an up-front cost of approximately US$14,500.

The majority held that the arbitration clause was unconscionable, as there was a clear inequality of bargaining power between a large multinational corporation and a low-income delivery driver, and the resulting arbitration agreement was improvident in that the prohibitive fees effectively denied the respondent any meaningful access to dispute resolution.

The Court also clarified the framework for determining when a court, rather than an arbitrator, should resolve challenges to arbitral jurisdiction, holding that a court may depart from the general rule of arbitral referral where there is a real prospect that the challenge would never be resolved if referred to arbitration.

A concurring judgment by Brown J. agreed with dismissal but preferred to ground the result in public policy rather than unconscionability, finding that the arbitration clause imposed undue hardship by barring access to a legally determined dispute resolution.

Côté J. dissented, reasoning that the arbitration clause was valid, that the Court of Appeal erred in applying the Arbitration Act rather than the International Commercial Arbitration Act, and that the appropriate remedy, if any, was a conditional stay requiring Uber to advance the initiation fees.

Parkland Fuel Corporation sought $88,282 in costs after successfully defending an application brought by Quickie Convenience Stores Corp. Quickie argued for no costs or a 50% reduction, citing divided success on legal issues and Parkland's late presentation of jurisdictional arguments.

The court found Parkland largely successful in the application's overall outcome, but acknowledged Quickie's partial success on one issue (compliance with first notice and offer obligations) and considered Parkland's delayed jurisdictional arguments.

Ultimately, the court awarded Parkland $52,900 in partial indemnity costs, representing a 20% reduction from their claimed amount.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on the liability common issues in a class action for unpaid overtime on behalf of customer service employees of the defendant bank.

The court found that the bank's overtime policies, which required pre-approval, and its failure to record actual hours worked, violated the Canada Labour Code.

The court concluded that the bank permitted uncompensated overtime by failing to prevent it, thereby breaching its statutory and contractual duties to the class members.

The plaintiff, Ms. Clarke, sought long-term disability benefits from Sun Life.

Sun Life initially approved 'own occupation' benefits but closed the file in February 2014, stating medical information did not support 'any occupation' benefits.

After a three-year delay, Ms. Clarke provided further medical information in March 2017, leading to another rejection in June 2017.

Ms. Clarke then filed a statement of claim in August 2018.

Sun Life moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute-barred, which was denied by the motion judge.

Sun Life appealed.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in determining the limitation period's commencement and in failing to conduct a proper discoverability analysis under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the motion judge's order and directing the matter to proceed to trial to determine the limitation period issues.

The applicant, Quickie Convenience Stores Corp., sought a declaration that the respondent, Parkland Fuel Corporation, unreasonably withheld consent to the assignment of various leases, subleases, and contracts to a prospective purchaser of Quickie's assets.

Quickie also sought a declaration releasing it from right of first offer obligations.

The court found that Parkland unreasonably withheld consent for the Ontario leases under s. 23(1) of the Commercial Tenancy Act, as it attempted to use the consent requirement to obtain benefits exceeding its contractual rights.

However, the court dismissed the application overall because it lacked jurisdiction over the Quebec leases governed by Quebec law and forum selection clauses, and the CTA did not apply to the credit/debit card contracts.

The court also declined to grant the requested release of obligations.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a $19,000,000 settlement in a class action regarding unpaid overtime, as well as a distribution protocol and class counsel fees of 33%.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in assessing the reasonableness of the settlement and fees.

Finding the settlement to be a rational compromise based on expert analysis of electronic timekeeping data, and the contingency fee to be consistent with similar class proceedings, the court approved the settlement, distribution protocol, and class counsel fees.

In an unpaid overtime class action, the defendant bank inadvertently produced three employee survey theme reports and brought a motion seeking their return on the basis of solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the reports were factual summaries created by a third-party vendor for business purposes, did not contain legal advice, and were not created with the dominant purpose of litigation preparation.

The documents were ordered to remain produced.

This endorsement addresses a motion in a class proceeding for approval of the notice to class members regarding a proposed settlement and class counsel's fees and disbursements.

The court approved the notice and, recognizing the challenges of assessing unopposed fee applications, decided to appoint an amicus curiae to assist in evaluating the reasonableness of class counsel's fees and disbursements.

Directions were provided for serving materials on the appointed amicus.

Various defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged civil conspiracy, defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment.

The court struck the claims for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and unjust enrichment against all applicants.

The civil conspiracy claim against one individual defendant (Moez Kassam) was struck, but the conspiracy claims against the remaining Anson Corporate Defendants, Adam Spears, Sunny Puri, ClaritySpring Inc., Nathan Anderson, Richard Molyneux, and Darryl Levitt were allowed to proceed.

The court also clarified that 'whistleblower' complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission are subject to absolute privilege and do not constitute the commencement of legal proceedings for the tort of abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought judicial approval of two settlement agreements in class actions alleging price-fixing in the automotive parts industry.

The first settlement with T.Rad was for $1,167,452, and the second with S-Y Systems was for $50,000.

The court found both settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting they fell within a zone of reasonableness.

The settlements and requested legal fees were approved.

The applicants, dissident shareholders engaged in a proxy contest, sought a hearing and review of a Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) decision that conditionally approved the issuance of shares by Eco Oro Minerals Corp. to certain shareholders without requiring a shareholder vote.

The TSX permitted an accelerated closing of the share issuance just days before the record date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission conducted a de novo review, finding that the TSX overlooked material evidence regarding the proxy contest and erred in its interpretation of 'materially affect control.' The Commission set aside the TSX decision, concluding that the share issuance materially affected control and required shareholder approval.

To remedy the improper issuance, the Commission ordered Eco Oro to hold a shareholder vote to either ratify or reverse the share issuance, cease-traded the new shares pending the vote, and prohibited the new shares from being voted at the upcoming meeting.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the defendant employer for unpaid overtime.

The proposed class included non-management employees subject to the defendant's overtime policy.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

The court certified the action, finding that there was an identifiable class, common issues regarding systemic practices and aggregate damages, that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and that the plaintiff was an appropriate representative.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order approving the plaintiff's discovery plan in a class action for unpaid overtime.

The defendants argued the order conflicted with established principles of relevance in class actions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision on relevance and concluding it was not desirable to grant leave.

The plaintiff, Christopher Staines, brought a motion for consent certification for settlement purposes in a proposed class action alleging that numerous defendants conspired to fix prices in the FX Market.

Settlements were reached with UBS, BNP Paribas, and Bank of America.

The court reviewed the five-part test under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and, applying a less rigorous standard for settlement contexts, found all criteria satisfied.

The motion for certification for settlement purposes was granted.