Mahdi Hussein

Following a decision granting leave to proceed with secondary market misrepresentation claims and certifying a class action, the parties disputed the settlement of the order, the certification of the primary market subclass's financial outlook claim, and costs.

The court held that the primary market subclass's claim remained certified, as importing a merits-based leave test into the certification criteria was improper.

The court settled the order in accordance with the plaintiff's draft, declined to clarify findings of fact, and awarded the plaintiff $950,000 in costs based on overall success.

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.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

Vale Canada and its primary insurer, RSA, brought actions against numerous excess insurers for coverage of environmental remediation costs incurred primarily in Ontario.

Several foreign excess insurers brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court or seeking a stay based on forum non conveniens in favour of an action in New York.

The court found it had jurisdiction over all moving insurers except North River Insurance Company, concluding that the insurers were 'carrying on business' in Ontario by participating in a global insurance program for an Ontario-based company.

The court declined to stay the actions for forum non conveniens, finding Ontario to be the 'centre of gravity' for the dispute.

Claims by Vale Canada against two UK insurers were stayed pending arbitration.

The plaintiffs brought an action against multiple insurers for indemnity regarding environmental damage.

Several foreign defendants failed to deliver statements of defence within the required time limits, and one was noted in default.

The defendants sought an extension of time to defend or bring jurisdictional motions, arguing the court should wait for the outcome of a parallel proceeding commenced by one of the insurers in the United States.

The court refused to delay the Ontario proceeding, finding no prejudice to the defendants in requiring them to respond timely, and ordered the defendants to deliver their statements of defence or motion records by a specified deadline.

Following an application to strike down certain condominium by-laws, the parties agreed that the successful party should be awarded $25,000 in costs.

Both parties claimed to be the successful party.

The court determined that the respondent was the successful party, as most of the impugned by-laws were upheld, and awarded the respondent $25,000 in costs.

The parties, equal shareholders and directors of two closely-held houseware liquidation companies, experienced a breakdown in their business relationship.

The applicant sought leave to bring derivative actions against the respondent for alleged self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as an interlocutory injunction to remove him as a director.

The respondent brought cross-applications to wind up the companies, claiming the parties were deadlocked and had previously agreed to wind up the business.

The court granted leave for the derivative actions, finding a well-founded basis for the claims.

However, the court dismissed the request for an interlocutory injunction, finding no irreparable harm.

The court also declined to order a winding-up at this stage, directing that the cross-applications be tried together with the derivative and oppression actions, as viva voce evidence was required to resolve credibility issues and determine the appropriate remedy.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation and disclosure of real estate transactions regarding a property he previously occupied.

The defendant second mortgagee brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against it and for a judicial sale of the property.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding damages were an adequate remedy and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate a prior default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the action against it on the basis of res judicata and ordering a judicial sale of the property.

The respondent client sought an order declaring that her contingency fee agreement with the applicant law firm was improperly terminated and that she was not liable for fees or disbursements.

The court found that the law firm had good cause to terminate the retainer due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Interpreting the Solicitors Act and its regulations, the court held that the law firm could proceed with the assessment of its disbursements immediately.

However, the assessment of legal fees was stayed as premature, because under the regulations, a solicitor cannot recover more in fees than the client recovers in damages, and the underlying tort action had not yet been resolved.