Paul-Erik Veel

The plaintiffs, representing a class of donors to a failed charitable tax shelter program, brought an action for professional negligence against the law firms and valuation firm that provided services to the program's promoter.

The professional defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and that they owed no duty of care to the non-client class members.

The court held the claims were not statute-barred, as the limitation period did not begin to run until the Tax Court declared the program a sham.

The court granted summary judgment to the law firms, finding they explicitly limited their undertakings to their client and owed no duty of care to the class members.

However, the court denied summary judgment to the valuation firm, finding a triable issue existed regarding whether it undertook a duty to the class members by authorizing its valuation report to be used in their tax appeals.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against the defendants regarding their practice of automatically renewing residential mortgages at maturity into six-month closed terms at higher posted rates.

The plaintiff alleged this practice breached section 8 of the Interest Act, breached the standard form contracts, and constituted unjust enrichment.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, including that the automatic renewal could trigger 'arrears' under the Interest Act.

The court certified the class action, finding an identifiable class, common issues predominating over individual ones, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

In a common issues trial arising from a certified class proceeding, the court held that a cosmetic surgery clinic and its physician-owner were negligent, breached fiduciary duties, and committed intrusion upon seclusion by operating surveillance cameras in consultation rooms, treatment rooms, pre- and post-operative areas, and the operating room without patient knowledge or consent.

The court rejected the submission that the cameras were justified as security measures, finding instead that they served the defendants’ self-protective interests and recorded highly private medical interactions for no medical purpose.

The court held that no trust relationship over the footage was established, but found vicarious liability and concluded that the intrusion upon seclusion claim could be determined on a class-wide basis using an objective standard.

Aggregate damages of $21,500,000 were awarded for intrusion upon seclusion, together with $1,000,000 in punitive damages, while negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims requiring proof of individual harm were left for further process.

The plaintiffs in two proposed class actions regarding consumer loans for HVAC and home improvements brought a motion to stay hundreds of individual enforcement actions (Related Proceedings) commenced by the defendants against potential class members.

The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the motion and that the test under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act applied, rather than the RJR-MacDonald injunction test.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a substantial overlap of issues across all unidentified Related Proceedings, and that a blanket stay would cause significant injustice to the defendants' lending businesses.

The court ordered the defendants to disclose the existence of the proposed class actions to consumers involved in the Related Proceedings.

During a class action trial involving cosmetic surgery patients and allegations related to social media consent forms, the defendants called a witness and sought to qualify him as an expert in eDiscovery document collection and retention.

The plaintiffs objected on the basis that the witness lacked independence and impartiality, having blindly followed counsel's instructions and failed to ensure compliance with PHIPA.

The court ruled that the proposed evidence was factual in nature rather than expert opinion, as the witness was simply explaining the steps he took and the data he extracted from electronic medical records.

Since the evidence was factual and not presumptively inadmissible opinion evidence, the court did not need to address the impartiality objections, but noted that cross-examination on those issues could be relevant to the weight of the evidence.

Two proposed class actions were brought against consumer loan companies for allegedly engaging in unlawful business practices that misled consumers into signing loan agreements in breach of consumer protection legislation.

The plaintiffs sought interim motions for temporary stays of hundreds of related proceedings (primarily in Small Claims Court) pending final disposition of the class actions.

At a case conference, the court determined the sequencing of motions and set a litigation timetable.

The court ordered that the interim stay motions be heard before certification, finding that fairness and efficiency dictated this sequencing to prevent the defendants' enforcement actions from effectively mooting the class proceedings.

The moving party, a provincial regulator, brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review by a waste management corporation.

The corporation sought an order of mandamus requiring the regulator to enforce the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016, alleging economic loss due to non-enforcement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding it plain and obvious the application could not succeed because mandamus is not available to compel general enforcement untethered to specific facts, and the regulator's enforcement powers are discretionary.

This decision approves a class action settlement and distribution protocol regarding predatory and unconscionable equipment lease agreements, including the registration of Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) on consumers’ homes.

The court finds the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the risks of continued litigation, the insolvency of several defendants, and the benefits achieved, including monetary compensation, lease cancellations, and legislative reform.

The court also approves class counsel fees, disbursements, a Class Proceedings Fund levy, and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.

This decision concerns a certified class proceeding that is progressing towards a settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Verita Global as the administrator for the implementation of the proposed settlement.

Class counsel, after a request for proposals process, recommended Verita Global based on its extensive experience, capacity to serve vulnerable individuals, communication abilities, reporting, budget, and cybersecurity certification.

The court found class counsel's choice appropriate and approved the appointment of Verita Global as the settlement administrator.

This endorsement addresses two motions arising from a cybertheft of approximately $9.7 million from the applicant's bank account at the respondent bank.

The applicant, FACTOR, sought additional productions from the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS), alleging a parsimonious approach to disclosure.

BNS, supported by other respondents, sought to convert the application into an action, citing material facts in dispute and complex issues.

The court largely granted FACTOR's production requests, ordering BNS to provide more details from its internal investigation, session logs (with confidentiality), and internal alert system details (with a secure mechanism).

The court also ordered the additional respondents, James Campagna and 10426377 Canada Inc., to produce all relevant documents.

The motion to convert the application to an action was dismissed as premature, with the court noting that the necessity of conversion could be revisited once the respondents deliver their full evidence.

The court addressed two related putative class proceedings concerning predatory equipment lease agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to amend pleadings, add parties, consolidate the actions, certify the consolidated proceeding for settlement, and approve the notice plan.

The court granted all motions, finding that the criteria for class certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met in the context of a proposed settlement, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially given ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The notice plan for the settlement approval hearing was also approved.

The defendants in several related class actions brought motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' actions were statute-barred by limitation periods or were a nullity for failing to obtain leave to commence.

The court adjourned the limitation period motions, finding they overlapped with common issues in earlier certified class actions.

The court dismissed the motions based on the leave requirement, interpreting the certification orders' leave provisions as applying only to competing class actions representing the same class members, not to actions by different classes arising from the same factual matrix.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a class action: one to approve a settlement agreement with Graham Turner LLP, declare notice not required under s. 19 of the Class Proceedings Act, approve a notice plan for class members, and grant leave to remove Emily Flammini as a representative plaintiff; and a second motion to approve Class Counsel's legal fees, the Class Proceedings Fund's levy, and the use of the remaining settlement fund for ongoing disbursements.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, found notice of the hearing unnecessary given the use of funds for disbursements, approved the proposed notice plan, and granted the removal of the representative plaintiff.

Class Counsel's fees and the CPF levy were approved, and the balance of the settlement fund was ordered to be held in trust for the class and applied towards ongoing disbursements.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The appellant, Davide Giacomodonato, appealed the damages award, contending the trial judge erred by applying the second employment contract instead of the first.

The court dismissed his appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding of fresh consideration for the second contract, including a $40,000 payment and additional vacation time.

The respondents, PearTree Securities Inc. and PearTree Financial Services Ltd., cross-appealed the costs award.

Their motion for leave to appeal costs was dismissed, as the court found no error in principle in the trial judge's discretionary costs award, which was justified by the respondents' litigation conduct.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify the proceeding as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleges that the defendant improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets.

The court found that all certification criteria were met, relying on previous decisions in similar cases, and granted the certification order.

The plaintiff, Davide Giacomodonato, sought costs after successfully prosecuting his wrongful dismissal claim and defending a counterclaim brought by his former employer, PearTree Securities Inc. and PearTree Financial Services Ltd. The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $830,761.75, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found that PearTree's counterclaim was meritless and tactical, and that PearTree engaged in inappropriate conduct, including late disclosure of documents, which unnecessarily increased the costs of the proceeding.

PearTree's Rule 49 offer was not given significant weight as the plaintiff achieved a better result.

Citibank, N.A. commenced an application seeking the appointment of an investigative receiver for Rodrigo Lebois Mateos' assets, inspection of records for Terralpa Investment Fund I Limited Partnership and Araterra Inversiones, and compliance with the Limited Partnerships Act.

The respondents brought a motion to permanently or temporarily stay the application in favour of ongoing proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The court granted a temporary stay of Citibank's application for a receiver, finding a substantial overlap with the U.S. proceedings and potential for duplication of resources.

However, the court ordered Terralpa LP and Araterra Inversiones to comply with the record-keeping and disclosure requirements of the Limited Partnerships Act, as this relief was outside the U.S. court's jurisdiction.

A sealing order was also granted for sensitive financial information to maintain comity with the U.S. proceedings.

The plaintiff, an investment banker, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal and unpaid compensation.

The employer counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached non-competition and non-solicitation clauses by joining a competitor.

The court found that the parties entered into two successive binding employment contracts.

The court made specific findings on how the plaintiff's variable compensation should be calculated under the second contract.

The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in punitive damages because the employer improperly withheld amounts admittedly owed to him.

The employer's counterclaim was dismissed in its entirety, as the restrictive covenants were found to be overly broad, unreasonable, and unenforceable.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and a representative plaintiff honorarium following the settlement of two national class proceedings (2012 and 2016 Actions) against various defendants, including Apple Inc., for an alleged eBook price-fixing conspiracy.

The aggregate settlement amount was $15,175,000.

Class Counsel sought $2.7 million in fees (25% of the Apple settlement, adjusted for Quebec) and $43,669.39 in disbursements, plus a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court addressed whether the Class Proceedings Act is a complete code for fee approval, the applicability of the Solicitors Act and its regulations regarding costs and disbursements in "all-in" settlements, and the treatment of notional cost contributions and administration costs.

The court found that the Solicitors Act provisions regarding costs and disbursements should apply harmoniously to class proceedings.

It ruled that disbursements should be deducted from the gross settlement amount, and a notional contribution to costs ($500,000) should be applied before calculating counsel fees.

Settlement administration costs were deemed not a disbursement incurred by counsel.

The court approved class counsel fees of $2,450,000 plus taxes, disbursements of $43,669.39 plus taxes, and an honorarium of $2,500 for the representative plaintiff.