Maisaa Elizabeth Jamal

In a proposed class action alleging a price‑fixing conspiracy in the optical disc drive (ODD) market contrary to common law and s. 45 of the Competition Act, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the claim to add eighteen additional corporate defendants.

The defendants opposed the amendment on the basis that limitation periods under the Limitations Act and s. 36(4) of the Competition Act had expired.

The court held that at the pleadings amendment stage it was inappropriate to make definitive findings on discoverability or the expiry of limitation periods where the evidentiary record was incomplete.

Although the plaintiff’s evidence regarding due diligence was thin, the court concluded it would be unfair to refuse the amendment solely on the deficient record.

The motion was adjourned to permit the plaintiff to file additional evidence addressing discoverability and diligence.

The applicants sought judicial review of planning applications filed by a land developer for a residential subdivision near proposed airport lands.

The applicants argued the applications were nullities under the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004, which imposed a development freeze on lands outside urban settlement areas.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the lands were not designated as an urban settlement area when the Act came into effect.

The court declared the applications and subsequent municipal decisions nullities, and prohibited the Ontario Municipal Board from hearing appeals related to the applications, as it lacked jurisdiction.