Mark Evans

In a certified and settled class action against Yahoo!, Class Counsel brought a motion to resolve conditions of the settlement approval and finalize administration.

The court approved a second notice program, awarded additional Class Counsel fees of $541,869.22 plus disbursements, and allocated a portion of the accrued interest on the settlement fund to Class Counsel.

The court also recalculated the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

However, the court dismissed Class Counsel's request for retroactive payment of omitted docketed time, finding it was counsel's own error.

The applicant, Bluecore Capital Inc., brought a bankruptcy application against the respondent, Sergio Grillone, a former lawyer, based on his failure to repay a litigation funding loan.

The respondent brought a motion for a mis-trial, alleging evidence tampering and perjury by the applicant's counsel and witness regarding the version of the loan agreement entered into evidence.

The court dismissed the mis-trial motion, finding the evidentiary irregularities were inadvertent and did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The court granted the bankruptcy application, finding the applicant proved a debt exceeding $1,000 and an act of bankruptcy.

The court held that special circumstances existed to allow a single creditor application due to the respondent's litigious conduct and the multiplicity of claims against him, making a bankruptcy proceeding the most efficient way to manage his estate.

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.

The defendant, a bank incorporated in Hong Kong, brought a motion to stay the plaintiffs' action for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiffs, an Ontario resident and a Panamanian company, sued the defendant over funds held in Hong Kong accounts that were not transferred as instructed.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the alleged tort of negligent misrepresentation occurred in Ontario.

However, the court exercised its discretion to stay the action, concluding that Hong Kong was the clearly more appropriate forum given the location of key witnesses, the governing law of the banking contracts, and the location of the funds.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

The defendant, a California corporation that dissolved after allegedly supplying a defective generator but before the plaintiff commenced its action, brought a motion to dismiss the action against it for lack of legal capacity to be sued in Ontario.

The court applied conflict of laws principles, determining that while capacity to be sued is procedural, the legal status of a foreign entity is a substantive issue governed by the law of its place of incorporation.

Because the California Corporations Code permits dissolved corporations to continue to exist for the purpose of defending actions, the court found the defendant had the legal capacity to be sued in Ontario and dismissed the motion.

Multiple tobacco manufacturer defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $300,000 after withdrawing previously scheduled motions to strike the Crown’s statement of claim in a health care cost recovery action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

The defendants argued they were the successful parties because their motions prompted extensive amendments to the pleading and that the Crown delayed notifying them of its intention to amend.

The court held that the amendments addressed only some of the alleged deficiencies and that significant legal issues remained unresolved when the defendants chose to withdraw the motions.

As a result, success on the motions was considered divided.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The accused, a police constable, was convicted after a retrial of breach of trust under s. 121 of the Criminal Code for leaking confidential police intelligence documents to members of the Hells Angels through an intermediary.

The leaked materials included sensitive intelligence bulletins and the identity of a confidential informer during a joint forces investigation targeting organized crime.

At sentencing, the court emphasized that police officers occupy a position of exceptional public trust and that general deterrence and denunciation are paramount sentencing principles for breaches of that trust.

The court considered case law involving corruption by police and other public officials and concluded that a penitentiary term was required.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inconsistent with denunciation and deterrence given the seriousness of the conduct and its impact on police operations and informer protection.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a failed public company and alleged negligent audits, both sides brought refusals motions concerning answers and undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors negligently prepared audit reports relied upon by lenders in extending a $1.5‑billion credit facility, while the auditors denied any duty of care and advanced additional defences.

The court reviewed the permissible scope of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, emphasizing relevance, materiality, proportionality, and recognized categories justifying refusals.

Applying those principles, the court ruled on numerous disputed questions, ordering some answers and upholding others as unanswerable, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged.

Costs of the refusals motions were ordered to be in the cause.

In a certified class proceeding arising from a failed public company and alleged negligent audits, both sides brought refusals motions concerning answers and undertakings given during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors negligently prepared audit reports relied upon by lenders in extending a $1.5‑billion credit facility, while the auditors denied any duty of care and advanced additional defences.

The court reviewed the permissible scope of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, emphasizing relevance, materiality, proportionality, and recognized categories justifying refusals.

Applying those principles, the court ruled on numerous disputed questions, ordering some answers and upholding others as unanswerable, irrelevant, disproportionate, or privileged.

Costs of the refusals motions were ordered to be in the cause.