Michael L. Byers

The applicant, a dissenting shareholder, sought a declaration that he owned 900,000 shares in a junior mining company prior to its amalgamation, and an order fixing the fair value of those shares.

The respondent argued the applicant's shareholdings were limited by an Anti-Dilution Agreement.

The court found the applicant was the registered holder of 900,000 shares and had a statutory right to dissent under s. 185 of the OBCA, unconstrained by the contractual agreement for the purpose of valuation.

The court fixed the fair value of the shares at $0.07 per share based on expert evidence of comparable junior mining companies.

The applicant's claim for oppression was dismissed.

The moving party, Rogers Communications Canada Inc., sought to set aside previous orders dismissing its motion for security for costs against the responding party, Active Security and Cable Inc., on the basis of fraud or newly discovered facts under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Rogers alleged that an erroneous payment of over $876,000 and other newly discovered facts regarding Active Security's financial status warranted setting aside the orders.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the new evidence would not have likely altered the original decision, which relied primarily on a large CRA debt.

Furthermore, Rogers failed to prove fraudulent concealment and had made a tactical decision not to raise the new evidence during the appeal process.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $290,704 following a successful bifurcated certification motion in a class action against the defendant.

The defendant argued the costs should be reduced by 50% because the plaintiff was successful in certifying the common law negligence claim but unsuccessful in certifying the statutory misrepresentation claim.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, finding that the plaintiff was the successful party in a complex, hard-fought motion and that divided success on specific claims does not necessarily warrant a reduction in costs.

The plaintiff was awarded the full amount claimed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the manager of an exchange-traded fund (ETF) that suffered catastrophic losses following a spike in market volatility.

The plaintiff advanced claims in common law negligence and statutory misrepresentation under s. 130 of the Securities Act.

The court certified the common law negligence claim, finding it met all certification criteria.

However, the court refused to certify the s. 130 claim because the plaintiff could not satisfy the identifiable class criterion, as it was impossible to prove which investors purchased 'Creation Units' directly from the manager versus units on the secondary market.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff under Rule 56.01(d).

The plaintiff sued for unpaid invoices relating to network infrastructure work, while the defendant counterclaimed for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging overcharging.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious, largely due to a significant tax debt to the CRA, and that its claim had a good chance of success.

Consequently, the court held that an order for security for costs would be unjust and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the manager of a complex, passively managed exchange-traded fund (ETF) after the fund's value collapsed, causing significant losses to retail investors.

The plaintiff alleged common law negligence for designing and selling a risky product and failing to actively manage it, as well as a statutory claim under s. 130 of the Securities Act for misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the certification motion and the action, finding it plain and obvious that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the negligence claim was an unprecedented attempt to recover pure economic loss for a 'shoddy' financial product, and that the statutory claim for ETF trading properly falls under the secondary market liability provisions of Part XXIII.1 (s. 138.3), not the primary market provisions of s. 130.