Maura O’Sullivan

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The defendant, Barrick Gold Corporation, brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay two companion actions, arguing that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Tanzania was the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiffs alleged injuries and deaths at a Tanzanian mining site, caused by the Tanzanian Police Force, for which they claimed Barrick was responsible due to negligent oversight.

The court found that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter, as the real and substantial connection to the litigation was in Tanzania, not Ontario, thereby rebutting the presumption of presence-based jurisdiction.

The court also determined that even if jurisdiction existed, Tanzania would be the clearly more appropriate forum due to the location of key witnesses and evidence, the inability to compel Tanzanian police witnesses in Ontario, and the adequacy of the Tanzanian common law legal system.

The actions were dismissed.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to reconsider a previous certification ruling that dismissed the action against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (MLF) in a class action alleging price-fixing.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify the action against MLF, presenting new evidence including a Second Information to Obtain (ITO), MLF's annual reports, Canada Bread's Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) from a criminal proceeding, and emails from Canada Bread's files.

MLF opposed the motion and brought cross-motions to exclude the new evidence and strike the Plaintiffs' amended claims.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, finding that the 'new evidence' was either not new, inadmissible hearsay, or did not substantively alter the lack of a viable cause of action against MLF.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation, stating that a certification dismissal for lack of cause of action is a final order and cannot be revisited without meeting a strict test for new evidence (Sagaz test), which was not met here.

The court also granted MLF's motion to exclude the evidence and strike the amended statements of claim against MLF.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding leave to pursue claims against Barrick Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appeal concerned the denial of leave for certain misrepresentation allegations related to Barrick's capital expenditure budget and production schedule, and the identification of public correction dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that there was no reasonable possibility of success for the additional misrepresentation claims and that the earlier public disclosure fully corrected the alleged misrepresentations, thereby limiting the class period.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The Plaintiffs, Anson Advisors Inc. and Moez Kassam, brought a motion for default judgment against Andrew Rudensky for defamation, seeking $500,000 in general damages and a permanent injunction.

Rudensky, who had been noted in default and had largely ignored the proceedings, appeared at the last minute to request an adjournment, which was denied.

The court found that the facts pleaded in the Amended Claim, deemed admitted by Rudensky's default, established the tort of defamation.

Considering the extensive and malicious nature of the online publications, the plaintiffs' professional standing, and the defendant's persistent and evasive conduct, the court awarded $450,000 in general damages and granted a permanent injunction to prevent further defamatory publications.

Costs were also awarded to the plaintiffs.

Rogers Communications Canada Inc. sought an interlocutory injunction and a sealing order against TELUS Communications Inc. The core dispute revolved around whether Rogers' customers, when roaming on the TELUS network, should display "Rogers-EXT" or "TELUS" as the network identifier (NID).

Rogers argued for maintaining the "Rogers-EXT" status quo pending arbitration, while TELUS contended that an expired agreement required "TELUS" display.

The court characterized the injunction sought as mandatory, requiring Rogers to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

The court found that the NID issue was subject to issue estoppel due to a prior arbitration decision and that Rogers failed to establish a strong prima facie case or irreparable harm.

Consequently, the motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.

The motion for a sealing order for confidential materials, which was unopposed, was granted.

This endorsement addresses the costs of appeals and a cross-appeal that were previously dismissed.

The appellants proposed an aggregate payment of $300,000 as partial indemnity costs.

The respondents sought higher amounts, with one group seeking full indemnity.

The court found the amounts sought by the respondents to be reasonable and proportionate, noting cooperation among counsel and no duplication of effort.

The court awarded specific partial indemnity costs to each respondent group, totaling $549,082.93.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

Class counsel sought approval of fees representing 25 percent of a $770,000 partial settlement, as well as disbursements.

The court approved the disbursements but declined to approve the requested 25 percent fee at this stage.

The court found the hourly rates used by counsel to be grossly excessive, distorting the value of docketed time.

Noting that the litigation remained in its procedural infancy after six years, the court fixed the fee award at $100,000 plus HST, without prejudice to counsel's right to seek additional amounts upon further settlement or completion of the certification motion.

The plaintiff in a class action sought court approval for a partial settlement agreement with the Kamaya defendants, who were accused of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy for linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment and cooperation benefits for the plaintiff class.

The court, applying principles from the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and relevant case law, found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the monetary amount being at the lower end of the reasonable zone.

The decision emphasized the value of arm's-length negotiation, counsel's recommendation, and the strategic benefits of early cooperation from settling defendants in complex conspiracy litigation.

The Catalyst Parties brought actions for defamation, injurious falsehood, and conspiracy against various defendants, including media organizations, journalists, short sellers, and former borrowers, arising from the publication of a Wall Street Journal article and whistleblower complaints to the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the actions under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Catalyst Parties also brought a motion to dismiss four discrete defamation claims in a counterclaim brought by the West Face Parties.

The court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Defamation Action and the Wolfpack Action, finding that the expressions related to matters of public interest and that the public interest in protecting the expressions outweighed the public interest in allowing the actions to proceed, particularly given the Catalyst Parties' history of aggressive litigation and ethically dubious investigative tactics.

The court dismissed the Catalyst Parties' motion regarding the counterclaim, holding that partial anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted and that the counterclaim had substantial merit.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

The defendants in a complex defamation action brought motions for the production of documents related to 'Project Maple Tree', an operation undertaken by foreign investigative agents (including Black Cube) retained by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the documents.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the motions despite the stay provision in s. 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court rejected the claims of solicitor-client privilege, finding the third-party investigators were not essential to the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also rejected the claims of litigation privilege for the vast majority of the documents, finding their dominant purpose was not legitimate litigation and that the 'Blank exception' applied because the agents engaged in improper conduct, including pretext stings on a former judge and opposing party employees.