Michael A. Currie

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to stay class proceedings and individual actions against them.

They argued they were entitled to a stay because they did not receive timely disclosure of a partial settlement between the plaintiffs and a co-defendant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the strict partial settlement disclosure rule does not apply to class proceedings, which are governed by the settlement approval regime in the Class Proceedings Act.

The court found the appellants received timely disclosure and were not prejudiced.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for breach of fiduciary duty and knowing assistance, the defendants sought costs.

The Primary Defendants sought full indemnification pursuant to the plaintiff's corporate by-laws, while the Consultant Defendants sought full indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's unfounded allegations of dishonesty and self-dealing.

The court awarded the Primary Defendants full indemnification totaling over $9.4 million, finding no reason to depart from the by-laws.

The Consultant Defendants were awarded substantial indemnity costs of approximately $2.4 million, as the plaintiff's conduct in pursuing serious, unfounded allegations justified an elevated scale of costs.

This endorsement addresses a scheduling dispute in a class action involving dentists who purchased insurance policies brokered by CDSPI Advisory Services Inc. and issued by Aviva companies.

The plaintiffs sought to adjourn upcoming motions for settlement approval and a stay of proceedings, pending an anticipated Court of Appeal decision in Thrive Capital Management Ltd. et al v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc. et al., which may reconsider the principles in Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited regarding partial settlements.

The court declined to adjourn, emphasizing the need for timely resolution and noting that new procedural rules (Rule 49.14) would be in force for the scheduled hearing.

CentriLogic appealed a trial order requiring it to pay Infor Financial Inc. damages for a financing fee and trial costs.

The appeal centered on the interpretation of an engagement agreement, specifically whether Infor was entitled to the financing fee and if CentriLogic breached a confidentiality clause by sharing Infor's proprietary materials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that CentriLogic breached the agreement and that Infor was entitled to the financing fee based on a commercially reasonable interpretation of the contract.

The court also affirmed the substantial costs award, finding no error in principle.

This case conference addressed the content and costs of the notice to be sent to class members following certification of a class action against an insurer.

The defendant insurer objected to the proposed notice content, which encouraged class members to submit claims, arguing it was improper advocacy.

The insurer also challenged the scope of notice distribution (to brokers and on its website) and sought to avoid notice costs.

The court approved the plaintiff's proposed notice content, finding it consistent with the insurer's own position on claim submission and the purpose of class notice.

The court denied the request for the insurer to post the notice on its website but ordered the insurer to provide policyholder and broker contact information.

The court further ordered that the costs of disseminating the notice, including administrator fees, be shared equally between the class and the insurer, citing the insurer's blanket denial of coverage as a factor.

The Representative Plaintiff, Marc-Oliver Baroch, brought a consent motion in a certified and settled class action to amend the Distribution Protocol.

The motion sought approval to reallocate uncashed funds from the first distribution, distribute accrued interest, allow for further distribution to class members who missed the first distribution, and obtain a cy-pres order for any remaining excess funds to be donated to SickKids Hospital and/or the OTA Education Foundation.

The defendants did not oppose the motion, and the court granted the requested amendments to ensure efficient and complete distribution of settlement funds.

The applicant, Competition Motors Limited (CML), sought to set aside an arbitral award from an Appeal Panel under the National Automobile Dealer Arbitration Program (NADAP) Rules, pursuant to sections 46(1)3 and 6 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

CML argued the Appeal Panel exceeded its jurisdiction by applying an incorrect standard of review (correctness on facts without deference, akin to a de novo hearing) when reversing an initial arbitral decision that found Toyota Canada Inc. (TCI) unreasonably withheld consent to CML's dealership sale.

The court dismissed CML's application, finding that the issue raised was not one of true jurisdiction under s. 46(1)3, and even if it were, the Appeal Panel acted within its mandate by interpreting and applying the NADAP Rules' unique correctness standard for both law and fact, which allows for a re-evaluation of evidence to reach a "better" conclusion without conducting a full de novo trial.

The court also dismissed the procedural fairness argument as it was contingent on the jurisdictional claim.

In a certified and settled class action, the Representative Plaintiff brought a consent motion to amend the Distribution Protocol, seeking an additional $90,000 for administrative expenses to complete a Second Distribution of settlement funds.

The initial settlement of $22,250,000 included $780,000 for administration.

Due to uncashed cheques and ongoing administrative efforts, the settlement administrator and financial expert required more funds.

The court found the request for additional administrative expenses fair and reasonable given the settlement value, number of class members, and complexity of the distribution, and granted the motion.

The plaintiff, Infor Financial Inc., sought costs of $511,762.22 following a four-day trial where it obtained a judgment more favorable than its settlement offer.

The defendant, Centrilogic, Inc., argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount, applying partial indemnity costs up to the date of the settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, in accordance with Rule 49.

The court rejected arguments of disproportionality and excessive time spent, noting the defendant's "hard-nosed approach" and intransigence throughout the litigation.

The plaintiff sought approval of a $22.25 million settlement in a class action alleging unpaid overtime by the defendant trucking company.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of proving systemic liability and the range of damages calculated by experts.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and class counsel's 30% contingency fee, noting that while third-party funding arrangements must now be considered in assessing legal fees under the amended Class Proceedings Act, it would not retroactively adjust fees in this case.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $15,000, in accordance with the terms of the Occupancy Licence.

The moving parties failed to close on a pre-construction home and sued for the return of their deposit.

The action was stayed by a Master due to an arbitration clause in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The moving parties sought to appeal the stay but missed the deadline, and a single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion to extend the time to appeal, finding the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The moving parties brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to review the single judge's order.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact, and agreeing that section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 is a complete bar to the appeal.

The plaintiff property developer brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant purchasers to vacate a condominium townhouse and prevent their re-entry.

The defendants had taken interim occupancy but failed to close the transaction, refused to sign extension agreements, made unauthorized alterations to the unit, and engaged in abusive and harassing behaviour toward the plaintiff's staff.

The court granted the mandatory injunction, finding the defendants were trespassers, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case, and the plaintiff was suffering irreparable harm to its property rights and reputation.

The applicant brought an application to enforce his rights under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding a cannabis licence in Zimbabwe.

The respondents moved to stay the proceedings, arguing the MOA mandated arbitration at the London Court of International Arbitration.

The applicant argued the MOA also contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause for Canadian courts, creating a conflict that allowed him to choose the forum.

The court found that it was arguable the dispute fell within the mandatory arbitration provision and, applying the competence-competence principle, stayed the application to allow the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Master's decision that stayed their action in favour of arbitration.

The underlying dispute involved an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction home containing a mandatory arbitration clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed appeal had no merit because section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act precludes appeals from decisions granting a stay.

The court also found no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the Master's decision.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to set aside a noting in default and stay the action in favour of arbitration, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought $20,000 in fees and $4,709.22 in disbursements.

The court reduced the requested amount by approximately 50%, noting that the defendants had improperly scheduled the first return date, relied on legal arguments from a previous similar case, and claimed excessive disbursements for photocopying.

Costs were fixed at $12,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and to stay the plaintiffs' action in favour of arbitration.

The plaintiffs, who were purchasers under a pre-construction agreement of purchase and sale, had commenced an action for the return of their deposit after the transaction failed to close.

The court set aside the noting in default, finding the defendants had promptly indicated their intention to rely on the arbitration clause.

The court also granted the stay, holding that the arbitration clause was valid, not unconscionable, and not procured by undue influence, and that the mandatory stay provisions of the Arbitration Act applied.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of pre-construction homes, commenced an action against the defendant developers claiming rescission of their agreements of purchase and sale or damages, alleging undue influence and unconscionability.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the action pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, relying on an arbitration clause in the agreements.

The plaintiffs argued the arbitration agreement itself was invalid as unconscionable and obtained by undue influence.

The court applied the four-part test for unconscionability and the test for undue influence, finding that the arbitration agreement was neither unconscionable nor obtained by undue influence.

The court granted the defendants' motion and stayed the action in favour of arbitration.

The defendants, KPMG, Canaccord Genuity Corp., and Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss actions initiated by 1511419 Ontario Inc. (formerly The Cash Store Financial Services Inc.) on the grounds that the claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The actions related to professional services provided concerning a January 2012 loan purchase and note offering.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claims, given the complex factual pattern, allegations of professional negligence, and the limited evidentiary record presented.

The Plaintiff, Wonderland Power Centre Inc., initiated an action against Post and Beam on Wonderland Inc. concerning a restrictive covenant on land previously sold by Wonderland's predecessor to the London Public Library Board.

Wonderland sought an injunction, a declaration that the covenant was binding, and rectification of the land register if it was unenforceable.

Post and Beam sought summary judgment dismissing the action and a declaration that the covenant was unenforceable.

The court found the registered restrictive covenant unenforceable due to its failure to identify the benefiting lands as required by the Land Titles Act.

However, the court granted Wonderland's request for rectification of the register, noting Post and Beam's actual notice of the intended restriction.

Wonderland's motion for an interim injunction was dismissed due to a lack of irreparable harm, and Post and Beam's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, with remaining claims for a permanent injunction and damages to proceed to trial.