Margot Grace Finley

In this certified class proceeding arising from alleged failures by mutual fund managers to prevent market timing, the plaintiffs moved to compel broader documentary production and to settle the discovery plan.

The court held that the requested comprehensive trading data and additional OSC production were directed to damages quantification, not to the certified common issues limited to duty and breach in negligence and fiduciary duty.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on an economics expert to establish legal relevance, holding that relevance to the common issues was a matter of domestic law for the court.

The motion was dismissed in full, and the court indicated that any remaining discovery plan details could be finalized at a case conference.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a costs decision where the motion judge ordered each party to bear their own costs of a certification motion due to the novelty of the issues under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiffs argued that s. 31(1) should operate asymmetrically in favour of plaintiffs and not shield unsuccessful defendants from costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions and no serious reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as there is no rule requiring s. 31(1) to be applied asymmetrically.

The applicants sought judicial review of a private school's decision to expel a student after he admitted to smoking marijuana in a dormitory room.

The Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the decision because the school was created by a Special Act, making its disciplinary decisions an exercise of a statutory power.

The majority quashed the expulsion decision, finding a breach of procedural fairness because the student and his parents were denied an adequate opportunity to be heard regarding the appropriate sanction.

The court declined to order the school to confer a diploma, remitting the matter to the Head of School.

The respondent on appeal brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The moving party had successfully applied to enforce Russian arbitration awards against the appellant in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that a respondent on appeal cannot rely on Rule 61.06(1)(b) to obtain security for costs against a defendant/appellant, as no party should have to give security simply to defend itself.

Furthermore, the moving party could not use the 'other good reason' provision in Rule 61.06(1)(c) to bypass this restriction.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages and dismissal of claims regarding a fraudulent kick-back scheme perpetrated by two officers of the appellant company and its suppliers.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in deducting advances made by the officers from the damages awarded for secret commissions, as the officers had no authority to borrow money from the bank to repay themselves.

The damages against the officers and their company were increased to $73,641.45.

The court also set aside a counterclaim judgment in favour of a supplier, finding he had already been fully paid.

The remainder of the appeal, including claims against the bank for unauthorized withdrawals and altered documents, and claims for punitive damages, was dismissed.

The appellant, a Senior Vice-President at the respondent bank, appealed the dismissal of his constructive dismissal claim.

The claim was based on a 13% reduction in his variable compensation package between 2001 and 2003.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant's compensation was not fixed, that the bank was entitled to align his compensation with other executives, and that the reductions did not constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal upholding the revocation of his real estate license.

The appellant was an undischarged bankrupt who had previously pleaded guilty to misappropriating trust funds in connection with his real estate business.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact and exercise of discretion.

The Court found no palpable and overriding error, concluding that the penalty of revocation was reasonable and necessary to protect the public.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.