Paul Douglas Guy

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions arising from a privacy breach at two hospitals.

Rogue hospital employees accessed the contact information of maternity patients and sold it to RESP salespeople.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the accessed information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and basic hospital visit details) was personal but not highly private, and that the intrusion would not be regarded by a reasonable person as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.

Although the motions judge erred in his class definition, the appeal was dismissed because the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion were not met.

The plaintiffs in two putative class actions sought leave to discontinue one action entirely and partially discontinue the second against all but one defendant group.

This procedural step aimed to streamline the proceedings by converting omnibus actions into separate class proceedings against distinct defendant groups.

The defendants did not oppose the requests.

The court granted leave for both discontinuances, recognizing the efficiency gains.

The appellant sought leave to bring a class action against Cronos Group Inc. and others for alleged misrepresentations in public filings.

The motion judge dismissed the leave and certification motions, characterizing the claim as alleging thousands of separate misrepresentations and finding insufficient evidence of individual materiality.

The Court of Appeal found this characterization erroneous, holding that the claim alleged one central misrepresentation regarding inflated revenues.

The Court determined there was a reasonable possibility of success, given the admitted misrepresentations, subsequent corrections, and share price drops, despite conflicting expert evidence on causation.

The appeal was allowed, leave granted, and the certification issue remitted to the Superior Court.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order dated April 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion for a declaration that the defendants were contractually precluded from opposing his motion for leave to appeal a decision denying class certification.

The parties had previously entered into a Litigation and Mediation Process Agreement which stated that no party would oppose a motion for leave to appeal an order disposing of all or a portion of the claim.

The court interpreted the agreement and found that the certification decision disposed of a portion of the claim, meaning the defendants were bound by their agreement not to oppose the leave to appeal motion.

This decision concerns a carriage motion between two proposed securities class actions, Kennedy v. Akumin Inc. and Longair v. Akumin Inc., brought under the amended Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court applied the new s. 13.1 of the CPA, which mandates a focus on efficiency and likelihood of success in advancing class members' claims.

The Longair action proposed a broader class period, alleged more categories of misrepresentation, and named additional defendants, including the company's auditor.

The court found that the Longair action better advanced the goals of access to justice and behaviour modification by encompassing more viable claims and defendants, despite some reservations about the claim against the auditor.

Carriage was granted to the Longair action, and the Kennedy action was stayed.

The applicant, Gregory Zentner, sought certification of a class action against GFA World and related entities, alleging fraud and misappropriation of charitable donations.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim on limitation grounds.

The court dismissed Zentner's motion for certification, finding that the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action because the donations were unencumbered gifts, meaning donors did not suffer a compensable loss recoverable through civil action.

The court also found insufficient factual basis for common issues, particularly regarding reliance and causation.

However, the defendants' summary judgment motion was also dismissed, as there remained a genuine issue requiring a trial concerning when Zentner discovered, or reasonably ought to have discovered, the material facts of his claim for limitation purposes.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e), arguing the plaintiff's claim for a one-half interest in their property based on proprietary estoppel was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff cross-moved to strike the defendants' affidavits and opposed their motion to amend their pleadings to add a limitations defence.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motions, allowed the defendants to amend their pleadings, and granted the motion for security for costs, finding the plaintiff's claim lacked practical merit and her conduct in the litigation was vexatious.

This costs endorsement followed previous judgments in consolidated applications concerning a shareholder dispute.

The court had dismissed the Cornacchia Group’s application and allowed, in part, Michael Cotic’s application, making Cotic the overall successful party.

Cotic sought substantial indemnity costs, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs under Rule 49.

The Cornacchia Group argued for apportioned costs or no reimbursement for disbursements.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity, finding that allegations of fraud arose from Cotic's sloppy record-keeping rather than deliberate misconduct, and that Cotic's Rule 49 offer was not more favourable than the judgment obtained.

The court also found the Cornacchia Group's actions did not unnecessarily prolong proceedings.

Cotic was awarded partial indemnity costs, assessed at $380,000, payable forthwith, jointly and severally by the Cornacchia Group, with a right of set-off against the purchase price of their interests in the Corporation.

Following a judgment determining the status of shareholder loans, the parties sought guidance on four specific accounting items.

The court held that franchise fees paid by the applicants were a corporate expense and should be credited to their shareholder loans.

However, claims for reimbursement of merchandise expenses, unpaid monthly amounts to one shareholder, and a balance on a loan from a shareholder's mother were dismissed due to lack of authority, insufficient evidence, and failure to plead the claims.

This case involved consolidated applications concerning a closely held corporation, Fitness Fanatix Inc. The Cornacchia Group sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, alleging Cotic mismanaged the business, failed to maintain proper records, and misappropriated cash.

Cotic, in turn, sought to enforce a buy-sell offer under s. 253(1) of the Act and the shareholders' agreement.

The court dismissed the Cornacchia Group's oppression application, finding their expectations were not violated and no misappropriation of cash by Cotic.

The court determined the correct shareholdings and Cotic's shareholder loan balance, rejecting claims that Wilkins and Correia were shareholders.

Cotic's application was allowed in part, granting him the first right to institute a new buy-sell offer based on the court's findings, as the original offer was not enforceable due to adjusted loan amounts and changed circumstances.

Two competing teams of legal counsel sought carriage of a proposed securities class action against CannTrust Holdings Inc. and other defendants for alleged misrepresentations regarding unlicensed cannabis production.

The court granted carriage to the Consortium team, finding that the competing TGF/RG team had a disqualifying conflict of interest because they excluded RBC Dominion Securities Inc., a current client of one of the firms, as a defendant.

The court held that excluding a necessary defendant to prefer a client's interests prejudiced the proposed class members by reducing potential recovery.

The Plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement, a distribution plan, an honorarium for representative plaintiffs, and Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The class action, initiated in 2012, involved common law misrepresentation and statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act for secondary market misrepresentations against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and its officers/directors.

After extensive litigation, including interlocutory motions, discovery, and two mediations, a settlement of $110 million was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the complexities and risks of the litigation.

The distribution plan and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were also approved.

Class Counsel's fee request of $25.25 million (22.95% of the settlement) plus disbursements and taxes was approved, recognizing the significant risk undertaken and the results achieved.

Oxford Properties Group brought a motion seeking the appointment of a specific arbitrator to determine the current value of the Newmarket Property under an option agreement.

Sears Canada Inc. and its Monitor brought a cross-motion requesting the appointment of a different arbitrator, who was already acting as a Claims Officer in the CCAA proceedings, to determine both the property's value and Oxford's related disputed claims.

The court found the issues to be inextricably linked and that separate proceedings would lead to additional cost and delay.

The court granted the cross-motion, appointing the arbitrator proposed by Sears and the Monitor to resolve all outstanding issues related to the property in a single, consolidated proceeding, thereby dismissing Oxford's motion.

The Judgment Creditors brought a motion within a receivership proceeding seeking a declaration that they held valid, independent unsecured debt claims against two insolvent corporations, 230 and MM, arising from a consent order and minutes of settlement.

The Receiver and a preferred shareholder opposed, arguing the claims were equity claims.

The court applied the Van Laun principle to look behind the consent order and found that the obligations to purchase the shares and pay accrued dividends contravened the solvency and cross-holding provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

Consequently, the claims were unenforceable as debt, except for the costs component, which was remitted to the Receiver for a reasonableness review.

Following an omnibus motion in a secondary market securities class action, the defendants sought costs payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs and one co-defendant argued for costs in the cause.

The court ordered costs in the cause, noting that the omnibus motion involved novel legal issues and was part of the fabric of the whole litigation, making it fairest that the ultimate victor in the action receive the costs.

This decision addresses eight motions in a billion-dollar secondary market securities class action.

The court granted motions by SNC-Lavalin and its Outside Directors to strike paragraphs from the Plaintiffs' Amended Reply and dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to deliver a Fresh as Amended Reply, finding that the Plaintiffs were attempting to plead a new, uncapped liability claim without leave and reintroduce previously rejected allegations of bribery in Libya.

The court also granted motions by the Outside Directors and Michael Novak to strike paragraphs from Riadh Ben Aïssa's Statement of Defence, which similarly attempted to introduce allegations of bribery in Libya and knowledge against co-defendants beyond the scope of the granted leave.

Additionally, the court granted protective orders for the examinations for discovery of Messrs.

Ben Aïssa, Duhaime, and Roy, who faced criminal charges, to protect their Charter rights and the integrity of criminal proceedings, but denied requests to stay or postpone discoveries.

This was a costs decision following a summary judgment motion.

The parties agreed that the responding party would pay $18,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, but disputed whether that amount should be set off against an outstanding prior costs award from a separate motion.

The court declined to order a set-off because the earlier award related to a different motion and there could be a dispute over interest on that earlier award.

The agreed costs award remained payable without set-off.

The defendant builder moved for summary judgment arguing that a full and final release executed by the condominium corporation in settlement of a parallel s. 23 Condominium Act action barred the plaintiff unit owner's separate contractual action concerning deficiencies unique to its units and immediately related common elements.

The court held that the condominium corporation had no authority under s. 23 to settle or release the plaintiff's distinct individual claim for specific performance and related relief, and interpreted the release narrowly so it did not extend to that action.

The court also held that res judicata or abuse of process barred the defendant from relying on a release defence that could have been raised before the Court of Appeal when the scope of the plaintiff's right to maintain the action was litigated.

Because the parallel proceeding had settled and the release did not bar the claim, the partial stay would cause injustice and was lifted.

A corporation applied under s. 182 of the Business Corporations Act for approval of a plan of arrangement reorganizing its structure into a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT).

The arrangement involved shareholders exchanging their shares for securities of a limited partnership and REIT rather than securities of another body corporate.

The court considered whether such an exchange fell within the statutory definition of an "arrangement" and applied the fairness and reasonableness framework from BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders.

The court held that the arrangement provisions should be interpreted broadly and that the exchange of securities as part of the broader corporate reorganization satisfied s. 182.

The plan of arrangement was approved as fair and reasonable.