Rachael Sider

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, addressed two issues in a case conference: a proposed motion by the defendants to amend their Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and a proposed anti-SLAPP motion.

The court granted leave to amend the pleading by consent.

However, the court declined to schedule the anti-SLAPP motion, finding it untimely given the action was nearly three years old and significant litigation steps had already occurred.

The court emphasized that anti-SLAPP motions are screening devices meant for early stages, not surrogates for summary judgment or trial, and that the evidence relied upon for timeliness was available much earlier.

The parties were directed to agree on a case management timetable to prepare for trial.

The proposed representative plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim against Maxar Technologies Inc. and its directors/officers, alleging failures to properly impair assets and recognize revenue under IFRS.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert evidence on IFRS due to lack of qualifications and impartiality, and struck portions of their reply evidence as impermissible case-splitting.

Relying on the defendants' admitted expert evidence, the court found no credible evidence that Maxar's financial statements contained material misrepresentations.

The motion for leave was dismissed as there was no reasonable possibility of success at trial, and the related certification motion was consequently dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding a request to vary a trial costs award.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal by the Respondents (plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim), they sought to vary the trial costs award, arguing entitlement to a higher scale due to beating a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Appellants (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) opposed this request.

The Court declined to vary its decision, noting that the Respondents had not appealed or sought leave to appeal the trial costs, nor had they raised the issue in their notices of cross-appeal or in their submissions on costs.

The respondents were successful in resisting appeals by the Varma/Madra Appellants and the Palihapitiya Appellants, and succeeded on their cross-appeal.

They sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found no justification for a higher scale and awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $300,000, payable equally by the two groups of appellants.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between two competing proposed class actions (the Bonnick Action and the Blackford-Hall Action) concerning alleged predatory practices in the consumer marketplace for HVAC equipment.

The court interpreted the newly enacted section 13.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which focuses on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court granted carriage to the Bonnick Action, finding its regional scope and targeted case theory against the alleged mastermind and lender corporations to be more efficient and cost-effective than the Blackford-Hall Action's national scope and broader conspiracy claims against multiple defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by two groups of appellants (Varma/Madra and Palihapitiya) and allowed a cross-appeal by the respondents.

The case involved corporate malfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, knowing assistance, and conspiracy related to the establishment of a competing fund (Annex Fund) and the undervalued sale of a technology company (Xtreme Labs), including the concealment of an equity interest in Hatch Labs (Tinder).

The trial judge's findings of liability for damages and disgorgement were largely upheld, and the disgorgement amount was increased on cross-appeal to serve a stronger deterrent purpose.

The court affirmed that directors of a corporate general partner can owe fiduciary duties directly to a limited partnership.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class proceeding against the RCMP for the alleged inappropriate and sexualized conduct of Designated Physicians during mandatory medical examinations of applicants.

The Court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, there was an identifiable class, the claims raised common questions, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was suitable.

The motion for certification was granted.

This decision concerns a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752.

The court granted certification of the action but made significant modifications to the proposed terms of the Certification Order, Notice of Certification, Litigation Plan, and Opt-out Form.

Key modifications included extending the opt-out period to align with the Montreal Convention limitation period, removing requirements for court approval for minors/incapable persons and estate representatives to opt out, and deleting a proposed anonymity provision.

The court also restricted the disclosure of telephone numbers for notice distribution.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the RCMP for systemic negligence regarding bullying, intimidation, and harassment.

The Crown argued the court should decline jurisdiction due to available internal and legislative remedies.

The court found those alternatives inadequate given the systemic nature of the claims.

Concluding that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, common issues predominated, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiffs were appropriate, the court granted the certification motion.