5 total
Claims against a Canadian corporation for breaches of customary international law can proceed to trial.
Three Eritrean workers alleged they were conscripted into forced labour at a mine in Eritrea owned by Canadian corporation Nevsun Resources Ltd. and subjected to violent, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The workers commenced proceedings in British Columbia seeking damages for breaches of customary international law prohibitions against forced labour, slavery, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and crimes against humanity, as well as domestic torts.
Nevsun brought a motion to strike the pleadings on the basis of the act of state doctrine and on the basis that the customary international law claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The majority (Abella J., Wagner C.J., Karakatsanis, Gascon and Martin JJ.) dismissed the appeal, holding that the act of state doctrine does not form part of Canadian common law and that it was not plain and obvious that the customary international law claims were bound to fail.
Brown and Rowe JJ. dissented in part, agreeing on the act of state doctrine but concluding the customary international law claims were bound to fail.
Côté J. (Moldaver J. concurring) dissented in full, holding the claims were not justiciable because they required a determination that Eritrea had violated international law.
The court dismissed the defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification of oppression-based common issues.
This is a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class action proceeding, specifically challenging the certification of oppression-based common issues.
The moving parties (Baffinland Iron Mines and three individual defendants) argued that previous decisions precluded class proceedings based on oppression claims due to the need for individual shareholder expectation assessments.
The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the original order.
The court held that the motions judge correctly applied appellate precedent that oppression claims do not necessarily require explicit evidence of each individual shareholder's expectations at the certification stage, provided common shareholder expectations are objectively reasonable and specifically pleaded.
Shareholder class action arising from Baffinland takeover bid certified; oppression claims raise common issues.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed shareholder class action arising from the successful joint take-over bid for Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.
The plaintiffs asserted claims for circular misrepresentation, insider trading, oppression, and unjust enrichment.
The court found that the plaintiffs met the requirements for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act.
The court excluded compulsory acquisition security holders from the class definition but included secondary market sellers.
The court also held that the oppression claims raised common issues and that a class action was the preferable procedure.
Motion to set aside default judgment dismissed due to defendant's deliberate evasion of service.
The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $2.75 million obtained against him.
The court applied the five-factor test from Mountainview Farms Ltd. v. McQueen.
The court found that the defendant had deliberately evaded service and ignored the proceedings until enforcement was imminent in Hong Kong.
The court declined to consider the merits of the defence due to the defendant's conscious decision not to participate.
The motion was dismissed, and costs of $40,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
Court approves $1.9 million securities class action settlement and class counsel fees.
Motion seeking court approval of a proposed settlement and class counsel fees in a securities class proceeding.
The action alleged that a forestry company and its officers issued materially misleading financial statements and prospectus disclosures, contrary to Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, which artificially inflated share prices.
The claims included negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and statutory causes of action under the Securities Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act.
After arm’s‑length negotiations and mediation, the parties reached a $1.9 million settlement funded by the defendants’ insurer.
The court held the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved both the settlement and reduced contingency fees.