Mark Emil Walli

In a certified class action alleging price maintenance and conspiracy by a franchisor and its designated food supplier, the parties brought reciprocal motions regarding refusals on examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principles of relevance, materiality, and proportionality, emphasizing that the action was certified based on a 'top-down' systemic approach rather than a 'bottom-up' product-by-product analysis.

The court largely upheld the refusals, finding many questions to be irrelevant, disproportionate, or inconsistent with the certified common issues, while ordering a small number of questions to be answered.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged breach of a settlement agreement, civil conspiracy, and interference with economic relations arising from the defendants' implementation of new real estate rules that effectively prohibited the plaintiffs' flat-fee brokerage model.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded all necessary elements for breach of contract, predominant purpose conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, and that the individual defendants could be held personally liable despite being officers or directors of the corporate defendants, as the pleadings alleged they acted maliciously, outside their authority, and for their own personal business interests.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a cost award made by the motions judge following the certification of their class proceeding.

The plaintiffs argued the motions judge ignored established principles, such as costs following the event and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and improperly applied the principle of access to justice to the defendants.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion, considering all relevant factors and principles, and that there was no conflicting decision.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $77,362 for the motion for leave to appeal, the motion to expedite the appeals, and the appeals.

The Court of Appeal noted that the arguments were similar to those advanced before the motion judge and the Divisional Court.

The Court fixed the respondents' costs on a partial indemnity scale at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the appellants.

The appellants, a restaurant franchisor and its food distributor, appealed a Divisional Court decision certifying a class action brought by former franchisees.

The franchisees alleged the appellants engaged in a price maintenance scheme, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract by charging exorbitant prices for supplies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the certification, finding that the motion judge erred by focusing too heavily on the individual nature of damages and failing to recognize that the breach of the Competition Act, conspiracy, and breach of contract claims constituted valid common issues.

The court also affirmed that aggregate damages provisions under the Class Proceedings Act could potentially be utilized at trial.

The appellant franchisees appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding against the respondent franchisor and distributors.

The appellants alleged price maintenance under the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract regarding mark-ups and sourcing fees for supplies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in principle by focusing exclusively on the individualized nature of damages and failing to recognize that the breach of the Competition Act, breach of contract, and the fact of loss were common issues.

The Court conditionally certified the class action, concluding it was the preferable procedure to achieve judicial economy, access to justice, and behaviour modification.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision removing their law firm as solicitors of record due to a conflict of interest arising from the transfer of an associate.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions under rule 62.02(4)(a) regarding the failure to provide prompt notice of a conflict, and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision under rule 62.02(4)(b).

The court affirmed that independent counsel should manage conflict issues and that the motions judge correctly applied the principles from McDonald Estate v. Martin.