Rahool Agarwal

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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for re-certification of a class action, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded as the motion passed several certification hurdles before failing on the representative plaintiff requirement.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that partial success on hurdles does not equate to a divided result.

However, recognizing the difficult circumstances faced by plaintiff's counsel, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the fixed amount of $50,000.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes against a dental clinic and several dentists.

The action alleged negligence in infection control and prevention practices, exposing patients to communicable diseases.

The court found that the five-part test for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was met.

The action was certified on consent for settlement purposes.

The plaintiff brought a motion to re-certify a class action and appoint a new representative plaintiff, nearly two years after the court had de-certified the action and given class counsel 60 days to find a suitable replacement.

The court found that the proposed new representative plaintiff lacked an appropriate costs indemnity agreement and was implicated in spreading falsehoods among the class.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that allowing a late change of representative plaintiff under these circumstances would be fundamentally unfair to the defendant and an abuse of process.

The defendant sought costs thrown away after preparing a motion to settle the terms of a decertification order, which included a request to make the plaintiff's counsel personally liable for an unpaid costs award of $37,800.

Before the motion was heard, the plaintiff's counsel paid the outstanding costs in full, obviating the need for the motion.

The court declined to award costs thrown away to the defendant, emphasizing the judicial policy of encouraging parties to resolve disputes and reduce litigation expenses.

A case conference was held to discuss next steps in a class action that was previously certified and then decertified.

The plaintiff sought to schedule a recertification motion with a new representative plaintiff, while the defendant sought to settle the terms of the decertification order, specifically seeking to make plaintiff's counsel personally liable for a previous $37,800 costs award.

The court deferred scheduling the recertification motion until the costs issue and the terms of the decertification order are resolved at an upcoming motion.

The plaintiff in an unpaid wages class action moved to be re-appointed as the representative plaintiff, having been removed months earlier for prioritizing his personal interests over those of the class.

Class counsel had been unable to find a replacement representative plaintiff.

The court found the plaintiff remained unsuitable due to his volatile, self-focused behavior and inability to provide independent judgment.

Consequently, the motion for re-appointment was dismissed, and the defendant's cross-motion to decertify the class action was granted.

A case conference was held to schedule documentary and oral discoveries.

The parties agreed to exchange Affidavits of Documents by September 30, 2019, and to conduct examinations for discovery in November 2019.

The court noted a potential issue regarding Schedule B documents that may require a further case conference if unresolved.

A case conference was held to address procedural issues following previous endorsements.

The court directed the parties to draft separate orders for six prior motions.

The court also scheduled a Rule 21 motion brought by the defendant Shapiro regarding the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and scheduled the plaintiff's renewed motion for a Mareva injunction.

Finally, the court set a timetable for written submissions regarding the Atkinson defendants' request to pay outstanding costs orders from funds held in trust.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to questions refused or taken under advisement during the cross-examination of an affiant.

The affidavit was sworn in the context of a pending motion to determine whether certain funds were held in trust pursuant to an agreement.

The Case Management Judge found that while the questions might meet the semblance of relevance test, they fell outside the narrow scope of the upcoming trust funds motion.

To ensure proportionality and efficiency, the court declined to order the questions answered at this time, without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew the request after the disposition of the trust funds motion.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the plaintiff trade union's action for lack of standing, to stay the action pending related criminal proceedings, and to strike the statement of claim.

The plaintiff union alleged the defendants misappropriated funds intended for the union's Retiree's Cancer Claim Fund.

The court found the plaintiff had standing as a trade union acting within its labour relations functions.

The court declined to stay the civil action, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite pending criminal charges against two defendants.

On the motions to strike, the court upheld most claims against the primary defendants but struck the claims against the defendant lawyer with leave to amend, finding insufficient material facts pleaded regarding his involvement.

The defendant moved for a declaration that service of a statement of claim was invalid where the plaintiff served the defendant's Canadian patent agent rather than serving the foreign defendant abroad under the Hague Convention.

The action sought damages following invalidation of a patent and included a claim under the Patent Regulations enacted pursuant to the Patent Act.

The court interpreted s. 29(2) of the Patent Act broadly, holding that non-resident patent owners who appoint Canadian representatives for service may be served through those representatives for proceedings arising under the Act or its regulatory regime.

The presence of additional common law or statutory claims did not remove the action from the scope of the provision.

The court concluded that domestic law permitted service in Canada and therefore the Hague Convention was not engaged.

The applicant sought court sanction of a plan of compromise and arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to resolve extensive litigation arising from the audit of Castor Holdings Ltd. The plan involved contributions from partners, insurers, and related entities totaling approximately $220 million and included third‑party releases.

A creditor group opposed the sanction, arguing that the releases violated Quebec civil law and that the claims process was unfair.

The court rejected these objections, finding the expert evidence unreliable, confirming that federal insolvency law permits third‑party releases notwithstanding provincial law, and concluding the plan was fair and reasonable given overwhelming creditor approval.

The plan was sanctioned.

Following trial reasons awarding the plaintiff sixteen months’ notice damages for wrongful dismissal, the court considered post‑trial submissions regarding whether “other commissions” should be included in the damages calculation for the notice period.

The original decision calculated damages based on commissions the plaintiff would have earned from October 2009 to January 2011.

The judge noted that the evidentiary record did not recall proof of additional commissions payable during that period.

The court indicated willingness to receive further submissions if evidence existed establishing entitlement to additional commissions within the notice period.

The defendant tobacco companies brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' proposed class actions as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their contracts by participating in smuggling duty-free tobacco back into Canada, avoiding higher domestic prices.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the alleged smuggling long before commencing the actions in 2009 and 2010.

The court dismissed the motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiffs discovered the constituent elements of their claims, particularly given the defendants' consistent denials of involvement in smuggling.