Paul J. Bates

On a Rule 20 motion for summary judgment in a proposed class proceeding, the court held that s. 68(1) offering statement requirements under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act apply to primary issuances and sales by a credit union, not to inter-member share transfers shown on this record.

Because the plaintiff and proposed class members acquired shares through transfers or dividend issuances that did not engage the statutory cause of action in s. 75(3), there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant regulator's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was granted.

On an uncertified proposed class proceeding arising from a pension fund’s loss on an FTX investment, the moving party sought leave to discontinue under s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with agreed non-monetary disclosure commitments in the plan’s annual reporting and payment of class counsel fees and disbursements from the fund.

The court applied the discontinuance approval framework, including whether class interests would be prejudiced by abandonment of a viable claim and whether the result was a practical resolution in light of litigation risk.

The court found the class would not benefit from continued litigation on the record, accepted that the settlement terms were objectively reasonable, and held that non-monetary relief could constitute a positive settlement outcome.

The court also approved the reduced fee amount and disbursements as reasonable.

The plaintiff discontinued a proposed class action against the defendant, a discount brokerage firm, after the certification motion was adjourned.

The defendant sought costs for defending itself against the certification motion.

The plaintiff argued the costs were excessive and should be apportioned among the multiple defendants originally sued.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced by approximately 25% to account for access to justice concerns in class action litigation.

This endorsement addresses two production issues in a proposed class action for misrepresentation under the Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff sought production of (1) a podcast audio or transcript quoted by defendant Michael Novogratz in his affidavit, and (2) documents underlying a chart referenced by defendant Alex Ioffe.

The court ordered production of the portion of the podcast transcript quoted in the affidavit, but declined to order production of the underlying documents for the chart, finding such requests more appropriate for cross-examination.

The court also set out a timetable for the upcoming motions and clarified the process for resolving refusals.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between three proposed class actions seeking damages for investors in The Toronto-Dominion Bank, arising from alleged misrepresentations and failures to disclose anti-money laundering (AML) deficiencies.

The court concludes that the Parkin action is best suited to advance the class members’ claims efficiently and cost-effectively, considering the statutory criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The decision addresses the impact of late registration of a class proceeding, the legal framework for carriage motions, the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each action, and issues of funding and counsel experience.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement regarding trailing commissions paid by TD Asset Management Inc. to discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged improper payments and misrepresentations.

The court approved a $70.25 million settlement for the class, along with the proposed notice plan, distribution protocol, and appointment of an administrator.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, an interim payment to the litigation funder, release of the funder's security, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The proposed plaintiff, Frank Losak, sought leave to commence a class proceeding against the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) and its CEO, Mark White, alleging misrepresentations related to the sale of Pace Savings & Credit Union securities while Pace was under FSRA's administration.

The court determined that leave was required under the Liquidation Order.

It granted leave for the claim against FSRA, finding a viable cause of action not barred by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act or the Limitations Act, and that it would not undermine the liquidation.

However, leave was denied for the claim against Mark White due to statutory immunity under the FSRA Act, as no particulars of bad faith were provided.

The statement of claim against FSRA was allowed to be issued nunc pro tunc to February 28, 2024.

This decision addresses the admissibility of two expert reports submitted by the plaintiff in a proposed class action certification motion.

The defendants sought to strike the reports, arguing lack of objectivity and improper scope.

The court ruled that the report from an investor in the defendant company was inadmissible due to a direct economic conflict of interest, despite the expert's disclosure and offer to opt out of class compensation.

The report from a lawyer specializing in securities and corporate law was deemed admissible, as it provided necessary and helpful expertise on complex regulatory standards, but its concluding paragraphs opining on the ultimate issue of misrepresentation were ordered redacted as they usurped the court's role.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, seeking leave to represent a class in a securities class action, served an affidavit from a lawyer, Lon Michael Kirsh.

The defendants, Anaergia Inc., Andrew Benedek, and Hani El-Kaissi, moved to strike the affidavit, arguing it contained inadmissible opinion evidence.

After the plaintiff served a revised affidavit removing opinions, the defendants moved again to strike it, alleging irrelevance and immateriality.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding the affidavit contained permissible observations of voluminous public filings rather than inadmissible opinions.

However, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs thrown away to the defendants due to the initial inadmissible affidavit.

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against pharmaceutical companies for negligently manufacturing valsartan, alleging contamination with NDMA and NDEA, which are potential carcinogens.

The claim was for damages related to an increased risk of cancer, costs of medical services and monitoring, refunds for drugs, and psychological damages.

The motion judge dismissed the certification, finding no viable cause of action based on concrete injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that claims for genotoxic injury (molecular changes without perceptible effect), psychological harm (not meeting the 'serious and prolonged' or 'ordinary fortitude' thresholds), and pure economic loss (as the product was discarded and not imminently dangerous) were not compensable in tort.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims for battery, consumer protection breaches, Competition Act breaches, and unjust enrichment, concluding that the pleadings did not disclose viable causes of action or meet commonality criteria for certification.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed securities class action under the Ontario Securities Act, alleging misrepresentation by the defendants regarding the value of Cronos Group Inc. shares.

The defendants opposed certification and brought a forum non conveniens motion to stay claims of non-Canadian shareholders who purchased shares on the NASDAQ exchange, arguing these shareholders were already covered by a parallel U.S. class action.

The court granted certification for the proposed class, including U.S. shareholders, and dismissed the defendants' forum non conveniens motion, emphasizing Ontario's jurisdiction and the policy of access to justice.

The appellant, a representative plaintiff in a class action, appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class action against Olympia Trust Company.

The action alleged that Olympia Trust, as a custodial trustee for syndicated mortgage loans (SMLs) held in registered savings accounts, breached trust and fiduciary duties by failing to ensure the SMLs were "qualified investments" under the Income Tax Act.

The motion judge found it plain and obvious that the claims for breach of trust and fiduciary duty could not succeed, and that other certification criteria were not met.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the Income Tax Act provisions and the Declaration of Trust did not impose the extensive "gatekeeping" or "watchdog" duties alleged by the appellant on Olympia Trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing the appellants' action as statute-barred.

The appellants, a former employee and his investment corporation, sued the respondents for breach of a post-retirement compensation agreement, claiming a permanent 3% interest in a partnership.

The motion judge found the claims statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, ruling that a single breach with continuing consequences occurred, not a series of breaches giving rise to a rolling limitation period.

The motion judge also found the request for declaratory relief was, in substance, a claim for compensatory relief and therefore also statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and struck her pleadings as frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious.

The core of her claim concerned how her insurer handled her statutory accident benefits claims, alleging a conspiracy with healthcare practitioners to stage examinations and produce false reports, and breach of privacy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes related to statutory accident benefits under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, regardless of how the claims are framed.

The Court also upheld the denial of leave to amend pleadings and dismissed the appeal regarding costs due to procedural non-compliance and lack of error in principle.

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant mining company made secondary market misrepresentations by failing to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants regarding a mineral resource estimate.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed the action, finding that the consultant's opinions were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and based on unreliable data.

The court held that the defendants were not obliged to disclose unreliable information, meaning there was no omission of a material fact.

In the alternative, the court found that the defendants satisfied the reasonable investigation defence under the Securities Act.

The plaintiff in a proposed securities class action sought an "exclusivity order" to prevent other actions on the same subject matter from being commenced in Ontario without leave of the court.

The defendants did not object.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that Ontario's established procedure for managing competing class actions involves a "carriage motion" once rival claims emerge, rather than a pre-emptive exclusivity order.

The court distinguished the Federal Court's "inclusivity order" in Heyder v. Canada (Attorney General) as not overriding Ontario's endorsed approach.

The plaintiffs brought two motions: one alleging Ford's non-compliance with an approved class action settlement regarding exhaust odours in 2011-2015 Ford Explorers, and another seeking additional class counsel fees.

The court dismissed the non-compliance motion, finding no evidence that Ford breached its good faith obligations or that class members were deprived of proper repairs.

For the fees motion, the court awarded a modest additional amount of $75,000 plus HST, finding the initial request for $1.2 million excessive given the limited actual financial benefits to the class members from the settlement's reimbursement program.

The plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class action against TD Asset Management Inc. (TDAM) alleging that TDAM improperly paid "trailing commissions" to discount brokers for "service and advice" that was not provided, thereby wasting Mutual Fund assets and causing investor losses.

The court granted certification for claims of breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, disallowance of improper expenses under s. 23.1 of the Trustee Act, and prospectus misrepresentation.

However, claims for knowing assistance, knowing receipt, and unjust enrichment were struck as analytically unworkable or lacking a proper basis in fact.

The court affirmed the plaintiff's standing as a unitholder to sue the trustee and manager, and found the class definition and common issues suitable for certification, reiterating that certification is a low hurdle not concerned with the merits.

Appellants brought a proposed class action alleging that respondents conspired to divide the beer market contrary to section 45(1) of the Competition Act through a Framework Agreement signed in 2000, and that a surcharge levied by Brewers Retail on licensees violated the Liquor Control Act.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the basis that the regulated conduct defence was available to the respondents.

The Liquor Control Act authorized the impugned conduct.

The Ontario legislature subsequently enacted retroactive amendments in 2015 to remove any doubt that the conduct was authorized.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the regulated conduct defence insulated the respondents from liability and that retroactive legislation could provide authorization for the defence.