Paul Le Vay

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

The LSO defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff, who is self-represented, sought a further indefinite adjournment of the motion, claiming that psychological disabilities prevented him from participating.

The court found that the medical notes provided by the plaintiff's treating physicians were insufficient to establish an inability to participate in the proceedings.

The court denied the indefinite adjournment, set a litigation schedule for the motion to strike, and allowed the plaintiff to bring a further motion for adjournment if supported by cogent expert medical evidence.

The court issued an addendum to its Reasons for Judgment, which previously found certain Option Agreement provisions unconscionable and granted relief from penalty and forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act to the applicants.

This addendum sets the specific terms for that equitable relief, including timelines for construction commencement contingent on the respondent withdrawing an objection and the final disposition of any appeal.

The court also addressed costs, finding the applicants entirely successful and awarding them partial indemnity costs of $111,349.43, rejecting the respondents' arguments for divided success or reduced costs.

The applicants sought a declaration that repurchase and daily penalty provisions in an Option Agreement were unenforceable and relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents brought a cross-application to enforce the agreement.

The court found the provisions unconscionable due to gross disproportionality between the forfeiture/penalty and actual damages, coupled with unfair conduct by the respondents, unequal bargaining power, and inherently unreasonable terms.

The court also determined that the respondent Michael's agent implicitly waived Michael's right to rely on the construction deadline through his conduct.

Consequently, the applicants' request for relief from forfeiture was granted, and the respondents' cross-application to enforce the Option Agreement was dismissed.

The court imposed new, equitable terms for future construction and a revised repurchase price if subsequent defaults occur.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements totaling $1,391,715.45 following a successful, but partially limited, certification motion in a class action against several financial institutions.

The Defendants argued for a significant reduction, citing their substantial success in narrowing the class definition and potential double recovery from prior settlements.

The court awarded the Plaintiffs $700,000 in legal fees and HST, payable forthwith, and ordered disbursements of $468,705.06 payable in the cause.

The reduction in fees reflected the Defendants' success in streamlining the class action and reducing their potential liability, which the court deemed important for the integrity of the class actions regime and to discourage overambitious claims, without constituting a distributive costs award.

The appellants, a real estate agent and broker, appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay damages to the respondents (purchasers) for water and mould damage to a residential home, due to the agent's negligence.

The appeal primarily concerned the measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by applying the cost of repair measure, as the appellants' negligence did not cause the property defect itself, but rather caused the respondents to enter into a transaction they would have otherwise avoided.

In such cases, the proper measure of damages is the diminution in value of the property.

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings on mitigation of damages and the foreseeability of frost heave damage.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge for reassessment of damages based on diminution in value and for a redetermination of costs from the first trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against several banks for allegedly conspiring to fix prices in the foreign exchange market.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the five criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but modified the class definition to exclude indirect purchasers (investors) and direct purchasers who transacted with non-defendant banks.

The court certified the action for direct purchasers who transacted with the defendant banks.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought to extend a temporary cease trade order against the respondents.

Staff requested the extension as part of a Statement of Allegations in a separate proceeding rather than by filing a motion in the existing proceeding as required by the Rules of Procedure.

The Commission waived the procedural requirement under Rule 3, noting that the respondents had notice of the request and did not appear.

The temporary cease trade order was extended until the conclusion of the merits hearing.

This is a costs endorsement following the release of reasons in an appeal.

The respondents advised that the court had misapprehended the appellants' oral costs submissions regarding quantum.

The parties were permitted to provide further written submissions on the costs issue.

The court affirmed its costs order for the appeal but altered the costs of the motion below, reducing the amounts payable by Bank of Montreal and Toronto Dominion Bank.

The appellants sought to add Toronto Dominion Bank and Bank of Montreal as defendants to an existing class action alleging a secret conspiracy to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claim against the respondents was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by establishing too high an evidentiary threshold and by finding that the respondents' identities could have been discovered with reasonable diligence without proper evidentiary foundation.

The court held that the appellants provided a reasonable explanation for why they could not have identified the respondents before the limitation period expired, and that the issue of due diligence should be determined on a summary judgment motion or at trial.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) brought a motion to quash an appeal and an application for judicial review filed by the respondent regarding an interlocutory evidentiary ruling.

The respondent had sought to exclude evidence based on solicitor-client privilege, which the OSC hearing panel dismissed.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that section 9(1) of the Securities Act only permits appeals of final decisions.

The court also quashed the application for judicial review on the basis of prematurity, holding that the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting interference in an ongoing administrative proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to add BMO and TD as defendants to a class action regarding an alleged price-fixing conspiracy, BMO and TD sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded because the issue of discoverability in conspiracy claims was novel, or alternatively, that the costs claimed were excessive.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding that the issue was not legally novel and the costs claimed were reasonable, especially given the plaintiffs' own estimated costs.

BMO was awarded $99,724.96 and TD was awarded $95,908.69.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add BMO and TD as defendants.

The proposed defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed they only discovered the involvement of BMO and TD after receiving a proffer of evidence from a settling defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the claims against BMO and TD before the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market moved for approval of six settlements totaling $51.5 million.

The court reviewed the settlements in light of the estimated range of total damages, the litigation risks, and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

Finding the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved the settlements.

The respondent, a partner at a global law firm, admitted to engaging in conduct contrary to the public interest by failing to pre-clear trades in securities of a client issuer, in violation of his firm's policy.

Although there was no allegation of insider trading or violation of Ontario securities law, the respondent was in a special relationship with the issuer.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and the respondent, finding the agreed-upon sanctions and costs to be reasonable and in the public interest.

This appeal concerns whether a proposed securities class action asserting a statutory cause of action for misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act was time-barred by the three-year limitation period in section 138.14.

The appellant commenced a class action in May 2009 but did not bring a motion for leave to proceed with the statutory claim within the limitation period.

The motion judge refused to grant leave nunc pro tunc (retroactively), finding that the appellant failed to meet the test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in principle in the exercise of discretion to deny nunc pro tunc relief.

An appeal from a trial judge's decision regarding the interpretation of an agreement.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation of key contractual language.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge correctly applied relevant legal principles, did not find the language ambiguous, and gave it its plain meaning with proper consideration of the surrounding provisions and circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

In this professional discipline penalty decision, the panel determined the appropriate sanction after findings that the member repeatedly breached an undertaking restricting his practice, contravened terms on his certificate, misled the regulator, failed to respond appropriately to College inquiries, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unethical conduct.

The panel held that the misconduct demonstrated prolonged and escalating refusal to accept the regulator’s authority and rendered the member ungovernable.

Emphasizing public protection, the panel found that remedial measures would not be effective and directed revocation of the member’s certificate of registration.

A publication ban protecting patients’ identities remained in force.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion and the granting of the defendants' motions in a proposed securities misrepresentation class action.

The plaintiff, St. Clair Pennyfeather, had sought a *nunc pro tunc* order to save his statutory misrepresentation claim, which was ultimately deemed statute-barred.

The Timminco Defendants sought $124,028.81 in costs, and the Photon Defendants sought $25,330.07, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments of divided success and public interest litigation, finding that the defendants were entirely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) factors, the court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable, noting the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and awarded costs as requested.