Mahdi Mohamed 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 an interpleader claim regarding $2,857,831.58 held in escrow following the sale of a real estate development property under a power of sale.

The funds represented a portion of the remaining sale proceeds after the discharge of a first mortgage.

The court found that the joint venturers had structured their investment as a loan to defer capital gains tax, which operated as an equitable charge on the limited partner's interest.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to priority distribution of the escrowed funds over the defendants' claims for partnership set-off, pursuant to the trust obligations and section 44 of the Partnerships Act.

In a securities class action arising from an issuer's restated financial statements and revised guidance, the court considered leave under the Securities Act for secondary market claims, certification under the Class Proceedings Act, and the defendants' summary judgment motion on limitation issues affecting the primary market claim.

The court held there was a reasonable possibility of success on claims based on conceded financial misstatements, omission of intersegment sales from the IPO prospectus, and related officer certifications, but not on alleged misstatements in the issuer's financial outlook because the assumptions were reasonable when made and the plaintiff had not shown materiality.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with the court rejecting proposed subclass restrictions tied to Canadian underwriters and post-correction shareholding.

On the limitations issue, the court held that the Securities Act ousts common-law discoverability for the 180-day period and requires actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim.

Summary judgment was dismissed because the record did not establish that the representative plaintiff had actual knowledge outside the limitation period.

This endorsement addresses two production issues in a proposed class action for misrepresentation under the Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff sought production of (1) a podcast audio or transcript quoted by defendant Michael Novogratz in his affidavit, and (2) documents underlying a chart referenced by defendant Alex Ioffe.

The court ordered production of the portion of the podcast transcript quoted in the affidavit, but declined to order production of the underlying documents for the chart, finding such requests more appropriate for cross-examination.

The court also set out a timetable for the upcoming motions and clarified the process for resolving refusals.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, sought to discontinue his class action against Cidel Trust Company and Neo International Investments Ltd. in a securities misrepresentation case involving Anaergia Inc. The court approved the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to the class or defendants, and ordered that notice be given to class members.

The court also granted procedural orders regarding factum length and amended the litigation timetable.

These supplementary reasons correct a previous decision regarding liability under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court, upon discovering a Court of Appeal decision (Mazur v. Elias et al.), clarified that co-owner consent is not required for liability to attach to both owners under the Act.

This correction amends paragraph 29 of the original reasons, affirming that liability attaches to co-owners regardless of consent flow.

The plaintiff and her insurer brought a motion for a determination of a question of law regarding whether the "personal" consent of a co-owner is required for a motor vehicle policy to provide insurance coverage for liability arising from the use of an insured automobile.

The court examined the interplay between section 239(1) of the Insurance Act and section 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, particularly in light of the 1990 amendment to the Insurance Act which removed the word "personally." The court determined that the personal consent of the co-owner was not required, as consent could flow through an intermediary, and the two statutory schemes operate independently.

This decision addresses the admissibility of two expert reports submitted by the plaintiff in a proposed class action certification motion.

The defendants sought to strike the reports, arguing lack of objectivity and improper scope.

The court ruled that the report from an investor in the defendant company was inadmissible due to a direct economic conflict of interest, despite the expert's disclosure and offer to opt out of class compensation.

The report from a lawyer specializing in securities and corporate law was deemed admissible, as it provided necessary and helpful expertise on complex regulatory standards, but its concluding paragraphs opining on the ultimate issue of misrepresentation were ordered redacted as they usurped the court's role.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, seeking leave to represent a class in a securities class action, served an affidavit from a lawyer, Lon Michael Kirsh.

The defendants, Anaergia Inc., Andrew Benedek, and Hani El-Kaissi, moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

After the plaintiff served a revised affidavit removing opinions, the defendants moved again to strike it, alleging irrelevance and immateriality.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the affidavit contained permissible observations of voluminous public filings rather than inadmissible opinions.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs thrown away to the defendants due to the initial inadmissible affidavit.

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.

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

The appellant appealed a denied reopening of a deemed conviction for disobeying a stop sign, arguing inability to respond due to COVID-19 court closures.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that their inability to respond was "through no personal fault" as required by the Provincial Offences Act.

The court emphasized that the pandemic did not serve as a blanket excuse for inaction, especially given available online services, and stressed the need for appellants to provide specific details and supporting affidavits for such claims.

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.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its statement of defence and counterclaim.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, ignored communications from opposing counsel, and breached a consent order requiring the delivery of an affidavit of documents and payment of costs.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber, the Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's overall failure to participate in the litigation process warranted the extreme remedy of striking its pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 applicant, a unit owner, challenged several provisions of the respondent condominium corporation's By-law No. 7 concerning rental activities, arguing they were ultra vires or unreasonable.

The court found that the condominium had the power to oversee rental activities, charge rental management and amenity fees, collect damage deposits, and limit tenant occupancy.

However, the court struck down restrictions on advertising and requiring owners to use only Board-approved rental managers as unreasonable infringements on property rights.

The plaintiff developer sued the condominium corporation and its individual directors for oppression and intentional interference with contractual relations, alleging they exaggerated construction deficiencies and implemented restrictive rules.

The defendants moved to strike the claims against the individual directors.

The court granted the motion, finding the claims were undifferentiated and lacked the necessary material facts to support personal liability against the directors.

The claims were struck without leave to amend.

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.