Randy Bennett

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their claim against the respondent for knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty.

The dispute arose from the sale of the appellants' shares in a family-owned shopping mall to the remaining family members, who then sold a 50% interest to the respondent at a higher valuation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence the respondent had actual knowledge of the alleged fraudulent and dishonest conduct or breach of fiduciary duties towards the appellants.

The plaintiff sued for damages after a crane it purchased was destroyed in a fire.

The plaintiff mistakenly named the Canadian distributor instead of the Austrian manufacturer.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiff successfully moved before a Master to correct the misnomer and substitute the manufacturer as a defendant.

The manufacturer and the Canadian distributor appealed the Master's order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonably open to the Master to conclude that the 'litigating finger' pointed at the manufacturer and that there was no prejudice in allowing the correction.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal of a refusal to certify a class proceeding regarding pension plan amendments, the respondents sought costs.

The appellants argued that no costs should be awarded, relying on the public interest and novel point of law provisions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The Divisional Court found no special circumstances to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

Applying the overriding principle of reasonableness, the court awarded costs to the respondents, including disbursements for a responding report on a fresh evidence motion.

The appellants appealed the decision of the motion judge refusing to certify their proposed class proceedings against the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission regarding amendments to its pension plan.

The appellants alleged the pension plan was an irrevocable trust and the amendments constituted a breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the motion judge made no errors of law, no palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that her conclusions on mixed fact and law regarding common issues, preferable procedure, and representative plaintiffs were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant, Universal Settlements International, Inc., sought judicial review of an Ontario Securities Commission decision upholding an investigation order.

The applicant, which sold viatical settlement purchase programs, argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was neither a reporting issuer nor a registrant under the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Commission has broad statutory powers to investigate matters it considers expedient for the due administration of securities law and the protection of the public interest, regardless of the applicant's registration status.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of an Ontario Securities Commission order requiring the production of documents and business records pursuant to s. 11 of the Securities Act.

The documents were sought as part of an investigation to determine if the Commission had jurisdiction to regulate the applicant's viatical settlement products.

The court granted the stay, finding that the applicant met the three-pronged test: there was a serious issue regarding the Commission's jurisdiction, irreparable harm would occur as the judicial review would be rendered moot without a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant given the impending hearing date.

The plaintiffs in two class actions moved to quash appeals brought by the defendants from an order declaring that the plaintiffs shared a common interest with the Receiver of YBM, and that the Receiver could produce a report to them without waiving privilege.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was procedural and interlocutory, as it did not resolve any substantive issue in the proceedings.

The court rejected the argument that the order was final simply because it involved a non-party (the Receiver), distinguishing prior case law.

The motions to quash were granted.