Miranda Lam

The plaintiff brought motions for approval of a class action settlement, plan of distribution, and class counsel fees in a securities class action alleging goodwill misrepresentation.

The court approved the settlement of US$3.65 million, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant risks of the litigation, including the primary market claims being potentially statute-barred and the defendants' dwindling insurance proceeds.

The court also approved the plan of distribution, the appointment of the settlement administrator and referee, and class counsel's 33% contingency fee of $1,353,246.25.

Following dismissal of a proposed securities class action leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendants sought nearly $900,000 based on partial recovery of actual legal fees, while the plaintiff argued for a substantially reduced award grounded in access-to-justice concerns.

The court held that the costs protocol developed for certification motions does not apply to leave motions, which function as a robust merits-based screening mechanism and often involve extensive evidentiary records.

Applying the hourly rate grid and Rule 57.01 factors, the court reduced certain disbursements but rejected the plaintiff’s lower estimate.

The court fixed all-inclusive costs at $500,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence a secondary market misrepresentation class action under the Securities Act and to certify the action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claim alleged that the defendant mining company's public disclosures regarding mineral production and grade levels were misrepresentations, which were later corrected by anonymous internet postings by short-sellers, causing a significant drop in share price.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the plaintiff's expert evidence failed to controvert the defendant's expert explanation of the discrepancies in the production numbers.

Consequently, the court also dismissed the motion for certification, as the common law claims rested on the same evidentiary foundation and were destined to fail.

The plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring a class action against a mining company for secondary market misrepresentation.

The plaintiff alleged that the company's public disclosures regarding mineral production and grade levels were false, as purportedly revealed by a subsequent technical report and anonymous short-seller internet postings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable possibility of success at trial because the defendants' uncontroverted expert evidence explained that the discrepancies between the reports were due to different reporting parameters, not misrepresentations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries, alleging a price-fixing conspiracy that artificially inflated prices for direct and indirect purchasers in Canada.

The court certified the action solely for the statutory cause of action under section 36 of the Competition Act.

The court excluded 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought from non-defendants) from the class, finding it plain and obvious they lacked a cause of action due to indeterminate liability and lack of restitutionary basis.

The court also declined to certify the common law claims for unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment, holding that they were precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Competition Act.

The remaining certification criteria were met for the statutory claim.

The plaintiff, a former shareholder of the corporate defendant, brought motions for leave to commence a secondary market liability action under the Securities Act and for certification as a class proceeding.

The defendants filed affidavits opposing the motions.

The plaintiff served requests to inspect hundreds of confidential documents mentioned in the affidavits under Rule 30.04(2) prior to cross-examinations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requests lacked specificity, relevance, and proportionality, and that allowing such a fishing expedition would undermine the statutory gatekeeping purpose of the Securities Act leave provisions.