Linda Plumpton

The applicants, shareholders of TD Bank, sought leave under section 334 of the Bank Act to bring a derivative action in Delaware on behalf of TD Bank's U.S. subsidiary regarding anti-money laundering failures.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Bank Act does not permit an Ontario court to grant leave for a derivative action to be commenced in a foreign jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, leave would not be granted because the proposed action did not appear to be in the best interests of the bank, given the board's reasonable business judgment and the potential prejudice to the bank in other ongoing litigation.

The plaintiffs, former and current Home Financing Advisors at Scotiabank, brought a motion to certify a class action alleging the bank failed to properly pay vacation and statutory holiday pay on their commission earnings as required by the Canada Labour Code.

Scotiabank argued its compensation model was all-inclusive and adequately disclosed, and brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' expert report.

The court granted the motion to strike portions of the expert report that went beyond the expert's mandate.

However, the court found the plaintiffs met all criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, including demonstrating some basis in fact that the compensation documents were confusing and inconsistent.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.