Michael G. Robb

This is a class action alleging financial misrepresentations in the sale of the defendant's securities.

The class comprises persons or entities who acquired securities between March 30, 2011 and November 7, 2013.

The action was certified under the Class Proceedings Act in December 2018.

The parties reached a proposed settlement whereby the defendant will pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability to resolve all claims.

The court approved the notice plan for dissemination to class members and appointed Epiq Global as the settlement administrator.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement regarding trailing commissions paid by TD Asset Management Inc. to discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged improper payments and misrepresentations.

The court approved a $70.25 million settlement for the class, along with the proposed notice plan, distribution protocol, and appointment of an administrator.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, an interim payment to the litigation funder, release of the funder's security, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Peter Ross, brought an unopposed motion to certify a class proceeding against RBC Global Asset Management Inc. and RBC Investor Services Trust.

The action alleges that the defendants breached trust, fiduciary, and contractual duties by paying excessive trailing commissions to discount brokers from mutual fund assets.

The court granted certification, finding all five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met, including the disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and a suitable representative plaintiff with a workable plan.

The plaintiff in a certified class action moved to amend the class definition to extend the class period from May 18, 2021, to May 31, 2022.

The defendant opposed, arguing that claims of proposed new class members accruing after the original certification date were statute-barred and not tolled by s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the class definition, finding that while s. 28 does not toll limitation periods for claims accruing after certification for individuals who were not putative class members at the time of certification, the issue of discoverability for these new members should be left to the individual issues phase of the proceeding.

The court also approved the proposed notice plan.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify a class proceeding concerning the alleged improper payment of trailing commissions to discount brokers from CIBC mutual funds.

The court applied the five criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, adopting previous judicial analyses for the first four criteria.

The court found the representative plaintiff capable and the proposed litigation and notice plans appropriate, granting the certification order.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify the proceeding as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleges that the defendant improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets.

The court found that all certification criteria were met, relying on previous decisions in similar cases, and granted the certification order.

The plaintiffs in several 2018 class actions (the "2018 actions") brought a motion to temporarily stay overlapping 2022 class actions (the "2022 actions").

Both sets of actions alleged that defendants, as mutual fund trustees and managers, improperly paid trailing commissions.

The 2018 plaintiffs argued that losses were suffered only by those who purchased through discount brokers, while the 2022 plaintiffs contended that losses were incurred by all mutual fund holders, as fees were paid from the funds.

The court granted the temporary stay of the 2022 actions, finding substantial overlap and shared factual background, which would prevent unnecessary duplication of judicial and legal resources.

The court addressed potential prejudice to the 2022 plaintiffs by ordering the suspension of the relevant limitation period and by bifurcating the "separate series" and allocation issues for later litigation, ensuring that the 2022 plaintiffs' interests would be addressed when they diverged from the 2018 plaintiffs.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The appellant, Glenn Winder, appealed a motion judge's decision that his claim for the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion against Marriott International, Inc. did not disclose a cause of action.

The lawsuit stemmed from a data breach of Marriott's Starwood hotels reservation database.

Winder argued that Marriott's collection and storage of personal information, in a manner that did not meet its representations and legal obligations regarding security, constituted an invasion of privacy, vitiating consent.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion requires an actual intrusion into private affairs, not merely a failure to safeguard information from third-party intrusion.

The court found no facts pleaded to support that Marriott itself disclosed or caused disclosure of the information, distinguishing it from a failure to protect against external hacking.

In a proposed class action arising from a data breach of Marriott's hotel reservation database, the parties stated a question of law under Rule 21(1)(a) as to whether the plaintiff pleaded a legally viable cause of action for intrusion on seclusion.

The plaintiff argued that Marriott, by allegedly obtaining data under false pretenses and failing to protect it, was a 'constructive intruder'.

The court rejected this argument, following binding precedent that the tort of intrusion on seclusion applies only to actual intruders, not to defendants who fail to prevent a third-party hack.

The court concluded the Statement of Claim did not disclose a cause of action for intrusion on seclusion against Marriott.

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.

This appeal addresses the role of "public correction" in secondary market misrepresentation class actions under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act.

The appellant sought leave to pursue a statutory remedy, which the motion judge denied by requiring a discrete and identifiable public correction that explicitly revealed the misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal, following its own decision in *Barrick OCA*, found that the motion judge applied an unduly onerous standard for public correction.

The Court clarified that public correction does not require "facial symmetry" with the misrepresentation and must be understood in context by the secondary market.

The appeal was allowed, and the leave motion remitted for redetermination.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a statutory secondary market misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and to certify the proceeding as a class action.

The claim alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material risks regarding the potential suspension of a mining license in Guatemala due to a lack of indigenous consultation.

The court found that the plaintiff established a reasonable possibility of success at trial based on credible expert evidence regarding Guatemalan law and economic materiality.

The court granted leave and certified the global class action, rejecting the defendants' objections regarding the representative plaintiff and the inclusion of foreign shareholders.

The Applicants, licensed cannabis producers, sought court approval and sanction of their second amended and restated plan of compromise and arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan aimed to implement a settlement framework for multiple securities class actions arising from the Applicants' illegal cannabis growing operations.

While the court found the Allocation and Distribution Scheme reasonable and rejected KPMG's complaint about being excluded from voting, it refused to sanction the Plan.

The court held that the Plan's provisions regarding the assignment of claims against KPMG and the Judgment Reduction Provision in the Bar Order were not fair and reasonable to the non-settling defendants, as they failed to limit the non-settling defendants' liability to several liability.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against BMO Investments Inc. on behalf of investors who held BMO Mutual Funds through discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged that BMO Investments improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets, despite discount brokers providing no investment advice.

The court found that the plaintiff's claims for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the Trustee Act, prospectus misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment all disclosed viable causes of action.

The court certified the class action, including a common issue for aggregate damages, and set the class end date as the date of the certification order.

In a class proceeding against the Bank of Montreal, class counsel brought a motion for approval of their fees and an honourarium for the representative plaintiffs.

The court approved a $5,000 honourarium, finding the representative plaintiffs meaningfully contributed to access to justice and assumed active roles without financial risk.

The court also approved class counsel's fees at 25% of the settlement funds, totaling over $3.6 million plus disbursements, noting the 2.6 multiplier was appropriate given the significant risks assumed by counsel.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action on behalf of debenture holders of Discovery Air Inc., alleging oppression by the defendants in a series of transactions that transferred Discovery's primary asset to Clairvest at a material discount.

Clairvest consented to certification but disputed the common issues and sought discovery directions, while the remaining defendants argued the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against them.

The court found the pleadings sufficiently detailed to disclose a cause of action against the individual directors and the Top Aces entities.

The court certified the action, adopted a broad definition of the common issues with some additions proposed by Clairvest regarding causation and reasonable expectations, and declined to order non-party production or expanded discovery at this early stage.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a class action settlement arising from data breaches at BMO and CIBC's Simplii Financial, which affected over 120,000 clients.

The hackers accessed personal information and demanded ransom payments.

The proposed settlement provided for a total payment of approximately $23 million, distributed among class members based on the type of information compromised and time spent addressing the breach.

The court applied the Mancinelli factors and found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks associated with the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for third-party hacker intrusions.

The parties brought a motion to approve settlement agreements and distribution protocols in class actions arising from data breaches at BMO and CIBC (Simplii) that affected over 120,000 clients.

The proposed settlements provided a combined $22.9 million to compensate class members for time spent and inconvenience, with tiered compensation based on the sensitivity of the compromised information.

The court applied the Mancinelli factors and found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks associated with the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for third-party hacker intrusions.