Nadia Campion

The applicant sought to enforce a letter of request issued by a United States District Court to compel the respondent, an Ontario resident and former employee of a related company, to be examined under oath for use in a US proceeding.

The respondent and an intervener opposed the application, arguing the evidence was coerced, irrelevant, and enforcing the request would be contrary to public policy and unduly burdensome.

The court found that the statutory preconditions were met, the evidence was relevant and not otherwise obtainable, and enforcing the request was not contrary to public policy or unduly burdensome.

The application was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to settle a Rule 7 Order pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, following the dismissal of their certification motion for a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in amateur hockey.

The court reviewed and settled the revised Draft Section 7 Plan, which transitions the proposed class action into up to 60 joinder actions against the defendant hockey teams and leagues.

The court approved the notice plan, opt-in procedures, and case management provisions, with minor revisions to protect player privacy and ensure efficient administration.

Following the dismissal of a proposed class action regarding systemic abuse in the Canadian Hockey League, the plaintiffs brought a motion under section 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve a plan to transition the proceeding into multiple joinder actions.

The court reviewed the competing Section 7 Plans submitted by the plaintiffs and defendants and found both to be procedurally flawed and overreaching.

The court proposed its own Draft Section 7 Plan designed to facilitate the commencement of up to 60 joinder actions while respecting the court's jurisdictional limits and the parties' procedural rights.

The motion was adjourned to a second phase for the parties to revise and discuss the court's draft plan.

Three franchisees (Versatile, Everest, and Premium Host) sought to rescind their franchise agreements with Paramount Fine Foods under the Arthur Wishart Act, alleging the franchisor failed to provide compliant disclosure documents.

The court found that Paramount was not exempt from its disclosure obligations.

However, Versatile and Everest failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disclosure documents they received were fatally flawed, so their rescission claims were dismissed.

Premium Host successfully established that Paramount failed to disclose material financial information in a single document, rendering its disclosure fatally flawed.

Premium Host's rescission was deemed valid, and it was awarded statutory compensation against the franchisor and its associates, including Paramount Leasing and the Manager of Franchising.

The plaintiffs, former major junior hockey players, brought a proposed class action against the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues, and 60 individual teams, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability for widespread hazing, bullying, and abuse.

The out-of-province defendants brought a motion challenging the court's jurisdiction, which was dismissed as the court found they carried on business in Ontario.

The defendants also brought a Ragoonanan motion, which was granted because the representative plaintiffs only had personal causes of action against five of the 60 teams.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claims failed the cause of action, common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiff criteria, primarily because there was no basis for collective liability among the independent teams.

However, the court utilized sections 7, 12, and 25 of the Class Proceedings Act to permit the action to continue as individual joinder actions, ordering the plaintiffs to prepare an Individual Issues Protocol.

The applicant estate sought a preservation order to prevent the respondent mining company from dealing with a 1.5% net smelter return royalty interest.

The interest had escheated to the Crown after the corporate owner was dissolved in 1989, and was recently sold by the Public Guardian and Trustee to the respondent.

The applicant acknowledged lacking standing to challenge the sale without a special statute to revive the dissolved corporation, which the Legislature had already refused to pass.

The court dismissed the application, holding that Rule 45.01 does not permit a standalone application for a preservation order in contemplation of a future, possible lawsuit by a party that currently lacks standing.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to stay the plaintiffs' action on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totaling over $260,000.

The court found the requested amounts excessive given the length and complexity of the hearing, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $50,000 to Israel and $36,000 to CTCC, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiffs, Argentine citizens, brought an action in Ontario against the State of Israel and its Canadian fiscal agent, seeking to recover proceeds from two bonds issued by Israel in the name of their great-uncle's estate.

The defendants brought a motion to stay the proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, that Israel was the more appropriate forum.

The court granted the motion, finding that the presumptive connecting factors to Ontario were weak and rebutted, as the core of the dispute involved contracts formed and torts allegedly committed outside of Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it because Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum based on the location of witnesses, applicable law, and enforcement considerations.

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 defendants, withdrawn partners of an insurance defence law firm, brought a motion under Rule 45.02 for an order directing the plaintiff partnership to pay their capital repayment amounts into court pending trial.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendants for over $7 million for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, asserting a right of set-off against the capital.

The court found that the capital account constituted a specific fund and that there was a serious issue to be tried.

However, the court dismissed the motion for payment into court because the defendants failed to establish a risk of dissipation, instead ordering the plaintiffs to provide quarterly financial disclosure and not expose the capital to differential risk.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for the appointment of an investigator under the Business Corporations Act.

They argued the motion judge erred by failing to determine if a prima facie case of oppressive conduct was established and by requiring them to prove oppression on the merits.

The court found the motion judge applied the correct test and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to quash an appeal by Brookfield from an arbitration award determining the fair market rental for a commercial property.

The court held that under the arbitration agreement and the Arbitration Act, 1991, the parties' appeal rights were limited to questions of law with leave.

The court found that Brookfield's grounds of appeal, which related to valuation theories, lease rates, and contractual interpretation, raised questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law.

Consequently, the motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The defendant successfully repelled the plaintiffs' motion for an interlocutory injunction and sought its costs of the motion payable forthwith.

The parties agreed to fix the quantum of costs at $150,000.

The court departed from the general rule that a successful defendant on an interlocutory injunction motion is presumptively entitled to costs payable forthwith, noting that the plaintiffs only sought a permanent injunction at trial and there were factual issues regarding the defendant's conduct.

The court fixed the costs at $150,000 but reserved the issue of entitlement to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

Following a trial where the plaintiff university successfully proved that the defendants engaged in fraudulent activities and breached their fiduciary duties, the parties could not agree on costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff full indemnity costs against the primary defendants who orchestrated the fraud, and partial indemnity costs against the defendants involved only in fraudulent conveyances.

No costs were awarded for earlier motions due to divided success.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration of oppression and the appointment of an inspector under ss. 161 and 248 of the OBCA to investigate the defendants' companies involved in two condominium development projects.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing under s. 161 as they were not beneficial shareholders, and failed to establish a prima facie case of oppression under s. 248.

The court also held that appointing an inspector was inappropriate as the costs would significantly outweigh the benefits, and the plaintiffs already had access to extensive financial information.

The plaintiff university brought an action against its former Assistant Vice-President and Director of Maintenance, alleging they orchestrated multiple fraudulent schemes, including false invoicing, kickbacks, and using university resources for personal residence improvements.

The court found the defendants liable for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, ordering them to pay damages.

The court also voided the transfer of the primary defendant's properties to his family members as fraudulent conveyances and rescinded his severance agreement due to material non-disclosure of his fraudulent activities.

The moving party and respondent entered into a joint venture to develop condominiums.

After the moving party's family assets were frozen, he transferred his shares in the project companies to the respondent to allow the respondent to secure financing, executing a document styled as a 'trust agreement'.

The moving party later brought a motion seeking the return of the shares, arguing the agreement created a bare trust that could be collapsed under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the document was a contractual agreement rather than a trust, and that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier would not apply regardless because the moving party did not have absolute beneficial ownership of the shares.

The plaintiff railway company sought interlocutory injunctive relief after former employees joined a direct competitor and allegedly downloaded and circulated confidential commercial information, including customer lists and revenue data, to solicit the plaintiff’s clients.

The parties agreed to an injunction preserving confidential information and restricting its use, but disputed whether an independent court-appointed monitor should oversee compliance with the order.

The court found the defendants had initially fallen short in complying with an earlier undertaking but had taken substantial remedial steps, including forensic searches, employee discipline, and written directives prohibiting use of the information.

The court concluded that appointing a monitor with broad investigative and supervisory powers would be overly intrusive into the defendant corporation’s business operations.

The court held that the contempt power and the existing order sufficiently protected the plaintiff’s interests.