Pamela Sidey

The defendant, a Quebec company, brought a motion to stay the plaintiff's breach of contract action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or was forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, an Ontario company, brought a cross-motion to validate service of the claim.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the contract was formed in Ontario and the defendant carried on business in Ontario.

The court also held that the defendant failed to establish that Quebec was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff's motion to validate service was granted.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Master's order that set aside a noting in default, struck portions of her statement of claim for sexual harassment and discrimination, and ordered costs against her.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the standard of review for appeals from a Master, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a proposed class proceeding for settlement purposes against a credit card network defendant in a competition law action alleging conspiracy to fix merchant discount and interchange fees for Visa and MasterCard credit card transactions.

The claims included alleged breaches of the Competition Act, tortious conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and unjust enrichment.

The court considered the certification criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, an identifiable class was established, common issues existed, and a class proceeding was the preferable procedure with an adequate representative plaintiff.

The court noted that certification for settlement purposes still requires satisfaction of the statutory criteria, though the analysis may be less strict given the settlement context.

Certification was granted as against the settling defendant and the proposed notice and notice plan were approved.