Nicholas Patterson

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a proposed class proceeding for delay pursuant to section 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

They argued that the plaintiff had not filed a complete certification motion record or established a timetable within the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

The plaintiff contended that extensive interlocutory proceedings related to a Mareva injunction, including timetables for affidavit exchange and cross-examinations, constituted "steps required to advance the proceeding." The court adopted a functional interpretation of section 29.1, finding that the injunction-related steps, which involved a deep dive into the merits and evidence relevant to certification, did indeed advance the proceeding.

Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay was dismissed.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claim of its policyholder, Farina Nazir, and the crossclaim of 2212478 Ontario Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised could not be readily bifurcated from the main action and presented a serious prospect of inconsistent findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The judge determined that a just adjudication required a complete understanding of the allegedly fraudulent transactions, which had not yet been fully discovered.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, reserved for the clearest of cases, and was not appropriate here due to the risks of delay, expense, inefficiency, and inconsistent findings.

The action was ordered to proceed to trial expeditiously.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a Mareva injunction freezing their cryptocurrency assets, which was initially granted without notice in a proposed class action alleging fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

The court found that the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure and met the test to continue the injunction against the corporate defendants and one individual defendant, citing a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation and a serious risk of asset dissipation.

The injunction was set aside for one individual defendant due to insufficient evidence of personal involvement.

The court also exercised its discretion to waive the undertaking for damages for the representative plaintiff, recognizing the public policy benefits of class actions.