Maria Arabella Robles

The applicant, an equal shareholder in two companies, sought the urgent appointment of an interim receiver due to a complete breakdown in her relationship with the other equal shareholder.

The companies were deadlocked, in default on a $5.5 million loan, and facing multiple lawsuits.

The Court granted the motion, finding a strong prima facie case of oppression and deadlock, irreparable harm to the companies' assets, and that the balance of convenience favoured a neutral, court-supervised officer to manage the assets pending the final application.

The Court declined to exempt ongoing lawsuits against the companies from the receivership stay at this early stage.

The plaintiffs, representing a class of donors to a failed charitable tax shelter program, brought an action for professional negligence against the law firms and valuation firm that provided services to the program's promoter.

The professional defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and that they owed no duty of care to the non-client class members.

The court held the claims were not statute-barred, as the limitation period did not begin to run until the Tax Court declared the program a sham.

The court granted summary judgment to the law firms, finding they explicitly limited their undertakings to their client and owed no duty of care to the class members.

However, the court denied summary judgment to the valuation firm, finding a triable issue existed regarding whether it undertook a duty to the class members by authorizing its valuation report to be used in their tax appeals.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Leiper J. dated October 23, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

Case management direction on scheduling intervention motions and the hearing date for an appeal from the dismissal of a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding alleging systemic failures in the child welfare system respecting Indigenous children in out-of-home care off-reserve, including over-representation in care and gaps in essential services such as health and education.

The case management judge directed that intervention motion materials be filed by March 5, 2026, responding materials by April 10, 2026, and intervention motions be heard May 8, 2026.

The appeal was scheduled for two days in June or early fall 2026.

Motion to certify a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act arising from a cybersecurity breach at Investorcom Holdings ULC affecting personal information held by Mackenzie Financial Corporation.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of contract, and fiduciary duty by both defendants in failing to adequately secure sensitive personal information including social insurance numbers.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding the pleadings disclosed plausible causes of action in negligence, contract, and fiduciary duty.

The court declined to certify claims under provincial privacy statutes due to jurisdictional limitations and the requirement of willful conduct, but permitted reliance on such statutes as material facts.

The court certified a national class proceeding without carving out members from other provinces, pending the outcome of a parallel British Columbia class action.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

The plaintiff succeeded in a libel action arising from newspaper articles and Facebook posts portraying her as a scammer who defrauded migrant workers of millions of dollars.

The court held that the publications were plainly defamatory and that the defendants failed to establish justification, responsible communication, fair comment, or statutory privilege.

The court also rejected reliance on Small Claims Court judgments as proving the sting of the allegations, and held that the Libel and Slander Act barred only the 2020 newspaper publications, not the timely 2022 article or personal social media republications.

General damages of $150,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 were awarded.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

This decision approves a class action settlement and distribution protocol regarding predatory and unconscionable equipment lease agreements, including the registration of Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) on consumers’ homes.

The court finds the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the risks of continued litigation, the insolvency of several defendants, and the benefits achieved, including monetary compensation, lease cancellations, and legislative reform.

The court also approves class counsel fees, disbursements, a Class Proceedings Fund levy, and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.

This decision concerns a certified class proceeding that is progressing towards a settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Verita Global as the administrator for the implementation of the proposed settlement.

Class counsel, after a request for proposals process, recommended Verita Global based on its extensive experience, capacity to serve vulnerable individuals, communication abilities, reporting, budget, and cybersecurity certification.

The court found class counsel's choice appropriate and approved the appointment of Verita Global as the settlement administrator.

The court addressed two related putative class proceedings concerning predatory equipment lease agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to amend pleadings, add parties, consolidate the actions, certify the consolidated proceeding for settlement, and approve the notice plan.

The court granted all motions, finding that the criteria for class certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met in the context of a proposed settlement, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially given ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The notice plan for the settlement approval hearing was also approved.

This is a costs endorsement following a grouped set of appeals and cross-appeals where all parties were entirely unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, rejecting the franchisor parties' argument to parse success across various elements of the appeals and cross-appeals.

The court found it inappropriate to do so, concluding that since no party achieved any degree of success, no costs should be awarded.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals and a cross-appeal concerning a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act.

Franchisees Versatile Holdings Inc. and Everest Group Inc. appealed the dismissal of their rescission actions, arguing errors in the burden of proof for disclosure deficiencies and the determination of franchisor's associates.

The franchisor, Paramount Franchise Group Inc., cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that Premium Host Inc. was entitled to statutory compensation, challenging disclosure exemptions, the effect of contract termination on rescission rights, material omission of financial statements, and the finding that Holly Graham and Paramount Leasing were franchisor's associates.

The Court dismissed all appeals and the cross-appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on the burden of proof for rescission, the non-applicability of disclosure exemptions, the right to rescind despite prior termination for breach, the materiality of the financial omission, and the determination of franchisor's associates.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a former franchisee, citing the plaintiff's insufficient assets.

The plaintiff conceded its lack of assets but argued against the order, claiming impecuniosity and a meritorious case.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity due to insufficient disclosure of shareholder assets and lack of inquiry into borrowing.

While acknowledging the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs on a partial indemnity scale, significantly reducing the amount sought to reflect the delay and future litigation steps.

The plaintiff, Tripsetter Inc., brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendants, 2161907 Alberta Ltd., Canopy Growth Corporation, and Justin Farbstein, and answers to undertakings and a refusal.

The core dispute concerned whether the parties' relationship was a franchise or a license, impacting disclosure obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court ordered the production of a Franchise Disclosure Document and a Financial Projections Document, finding them relevant to the nature of the relationship and the defendants' disclosure exemption arguments.

However, the plaintiff's general request for a further affidavit of documents and its requests regarding the undertakings and refusal were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff's representative to reattend discovery and answer numerous refused questions across four categories.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the questions were irrelevant or privileged.

The court largely upheld the plaintiff's refusals, finding most questions irrelevant to the core issues of the case, such as the nature of the business relationship (franchise vs. license) or the plaintiff's subjective understanding of legal requirements.

Only one minor question regarding inventory was ordered to be answered.