Macdonald Richard Irwin Allen

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.

The parties brought cross-motions concerning discovery issues, including compelling answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals, access to accounting software, and setting a timetable for subsequent steps.

The court ordered various questions to be answered and documents produced, emphasizing relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Access to the defendant's accounting software was granted to the plaintiff.

The court also set a timetable for further discovery and expert reports, reserving costs to the trial judge due to divided success.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking three orders: production from non-party Meta Platforms, Inc. under Rule 30.10, transfer of the action to Ottawa, and validation of service on defendants Roger Beit and Kris Singh.

The court dismissed the production motion as premature, noting that pleadings had not closed and discovery had not occurred.

The motion to transfer was dismissed because it was brought in the wrong jurisdiction (Toronto instead of Ottawa, as per practice direction).

The motion to validate service was granted for Roger Beit (unopposed) but dismissed for Kris Singh due to non-compliance with Rule 17.04(1) regarding service outside Ontario.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay Meta nominal costs.

The plaintiff landlord sued the tenant for breach of a commercial lease after the tenant abandoned the premises.

The tenant alleged fundamental breach and breach of quiet enjoyment due to various issues including insect infestation, mold, roof leaks, HVAC problems, elevator breakdowns, and safety concerns.

The court found that the tenant failed to establish a fundamental breach or breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, noting inconsistent evidence, lack of proper notice to the landlord, and the landlord's reasonable efforts to address reported issues.

The court also found that the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate damages.

The landlord's claim for rental arrears and future rent was granted, while the tenant's claims for set-off and rent abatement were dismissed.