Mark Gelowitz

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Facebook, alleging the unauthorized sharing of user data with third-party apps.

The court struck the claims for breach of confidence and breaches of the privacy statutes of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador, but found the pleadings disclosed causes of action for breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, disgorgement, and breach of the Saskatchewan Privacy Act.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' proposed expert evidence but admitted various documentary exhibits.

While the court approved several common issues, it found others required individual inquiries and adjourned the motion to allow the plaintiffs to propose a revised class definition and litigation plan.

The plaintiff in a complex family trust dispute brought motions on the eve of trial for further documentary production, further examinations for discovery, and leave to amend her Statement of Claim.

The motions sought to introduce new allegations that the defendants covered up and settled claims of sexual misconduct against the family patriarch, Frank Stronach.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no evidence that the requested documents existed, that the new allegations were irrelevant to the pleaded claims of corporate mismanagement, and that amending the pleadings three weeks before a scheduled seven-week trial would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The plaintiff, an investor in a mining company, brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and a motion to certify a class action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material facts about the viability of a gold mine in their prospectuses, which were later revealed in a press release, causing a drop in share price.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide expert geological evidence to explain the technical mining disclosures and establish that the alleged omissions were known or knowable at the time the prospectuses were issued.

Without such evidence, there was no reasonable possibility of success for the statutory claim and no basis in fact for the class action common issues.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim under the Securities Act and certification of a class proceeding against Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. and its officers.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to disclose a material tax liability arising from a CRA audit regarding transfer pricing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reasonable possibility of success at trial because the plaintiff's expert evidence was inadmissible or unreliable, and the defendants' disclosures accurately reflected management's reasonable assessment of the tax risk.

The court also declined to certify the common law and prospectus misrepresentation claims, finding a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure and the claims did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs, who held a right of first refusal (ROFR) over certain wind farm assets, sued the vendor and the third-party purchaser, alleging they conspired to artificially inflate the purchase price allocation of the ROFR assets to discourage the plaintiffs from exercising their rights.

The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of the duty of good faith, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and inducing breach of contract.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the vendor acted in good faith and the purchaser was entitled to act in its own commercial self-interest.

The court held that a difference in valuation or a strategic bid allocation does not, without more, constitute a breach of the duty of good faith or an intent to eviscerate the ROFR.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, brought motions to strike out portions of the defendants' Fresh as Amended Statements of Defence under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs argued that the impugned pleadings improperly referenced documents and communications that were subject to settlement privilege arising from a confidential judicial mediation.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had waived privilege or that an exception applied based on the justice of the case.

The court found that the mediation was subject to settlement privilege, the plaintiffs had not waived the privilege, and no exception applied.

The court granted the motions to strike the pleadings relating to the mediation.

The court also struck out portions of one defendant's pleading as scandalous, but dismissed a motion to require another defendant to reinstate a withdrawn admission.

Following the dismissal of the defendant insurers' motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions pending the determination of certification in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs requested $86,589, which the court found excessive for a relatively simple stay motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and considering proportionality, the court fixed costs at $35,000 all-inclusive, payable by the defendant insurers.

The plaintiffs sued their former insurer, Economical, and a related foundation, claiming entitlement to demutualization benefits after Economical declined to renew their home insurance policy due to their claims history.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs were not eligible policyholders on the crystallization date for demutualization benefits.

The court also held that Economical had no duty to warn the plaintiffs about its internal underwriting guidelines or to renew the policy, and that the claim was statute-barred as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The defendant insurers brought a motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions for COVID-19 business interruption losses pending the certification of a related class action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was overlap in issues and facts, staying the individual actions would cause significant injustice and prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had legitimate reasons for pursuing their claims individually and expeditiously.

The plaintiffs, Andrew and Selena Stronach, sought leave to amend their respective statements of claim in two related actions concerning the management of the Stronach family business and trusts.

The defendants, including Belinda Stronach, opposed the amendments on several grounds, primarily arguing that references to a May 2020 Agreement were barred by settlement privilege.

The court found that the defendants failed to prove the May 2020 Agreement was intended to be kept confidential, and alternatively, that any privilege had been waived or an exception applied.

The court also rejected arguments that the amendments improperly withdrew admissions or were scandalous and vexatious.

Leave to amend the pleadings was granted.

The representative plaintiff in two companion class actions against the Tim Hortons franchisor sought approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The settlement included a $10 million payment toward local marketing initiatives, $2 million for legal costs, and significant non-monetary benefits valued at over $25 million, including governance changes and the revocation of restrictive clauses.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it achieved access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification.

The court also approved the fee requests for the litigation funder and class counsel, finding them to be within a zone of reasonableness.

The plaintiffs and a defendant by counterclaim, Mr. Sauro, brought motions to strike portions of the statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs sought to strike paragraphs alleging ulterior motive and financial mismanagement.

The court struck the paragraphs pleading motive as frivolous and vexatious, but retained those pleading causation.

Mr. Sauro sought to strike the counterclaim against him, arguing it was improperly constituted as a counterclaim rather than a third-party claim.

The court agreed, finding Mr. Sauro was not a necessary and proper party to the counterclaim against the plaintiffs, and struck the counterclaim against him.

The defendants in a securities class action brought a motion to transfer the proceeding from Windsor to Toronto.

The plaintiffs opposed the transfer.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the plaintiffs' choice of venue was found to be reasonable, the court concluded that the defendants established that Toronto was a significantly better venue, given that a substantial part of the damages were sustained there, the subject matter was located there, and it was more convenient for the parties, witnesses, and counsel.

The motion for a change of venue was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a securities class action from Windsor to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations in a prospectus related to the financing of a workforce accommodation complex.

The court conducted a holistic balancing of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2).

Although the plaintiffs' choice of venue was deemed reasonable, the court found that Toronto was a significantly better venue because a substantial part of the damages were sustained there, the subject matter was more closely connected to Toronto, and it was more convenient for the parties, counsel, and witnesses.

The motion for a change of venue was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion to certify a securities class action for settlement purposes, approve a $12.5 million settlement, and approve class counsel fees of $3,437,500.

The action involved allegations of misrepresentation and failure to make timely disclosure regarding mining operations.

Despite earlier dismissals of certification and leave motions, the parties reached a settlement while a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada was pending.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks, certified the action for settlement purposes, and approved the requested counsel fees.

Trustees of a pension fund sought certification of a securities class action and leave to proceed with statutory secondary‑market misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

The proposed class alleged that a mining company and its officers misrepresented the value and prospects of two West African mines and failed to timely record a goodwill impairment.

The court analyzed the leave test requiring a “reasonable possibility of success at trial” and concluded that the plaintiffs’ theory relied on flawed expert analysis and speculative assumptions regarding drilling results and impairment triggers.

The alleged low‑grade ore misrepresentation was found to be semantically inaccurate, and an alleged schedule misrepresentation had not been pleaded.

Leave to proceed under the Securities Act was therefore refused, and certification was denied, though the individual common law negligence claim could continue.

The representative plaintiffs in a proposed securities class action sought court approval of a third party litigation funding agreement after the Ontario Class Proceedings Fund declined funding and class counsel declined to indemnify against adverse costs.

The funder agreed to indemnify the plaintiffs for adverse costs in exchange for a fixed percentage of any net recovery.

The court reviewed the developing jurisprudence on litigation funding in class proceedings and articulated guiding principles for approval, including requirements that the agreement not impair the solicitor‑client relationship, not undermine the representative plaintiff’s control of the litigation, and be fair and reasonable to the class.

The court also held that such agreements must be disclosed and approved by the court and may require security for costs.

Finding the agreement necessary to facilitate access to justice and fair to the class, the court approved the funding arrangement.