Robert Carson

Trustees of a pension fund sought certification of a securities class action and leave to proceed with statutory secondary‑market misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

The proposed class alleged that a mining company and its officers misrepresented the value and prospects of two West African mines and failed to timely record a goodwill impairment.

The court analyzed the leave test requiring a “reasonable possibility of success at trial” and concluded that the plaintiffs’ theory relied on flawed expert analysis and speculative assumptions regarding drilling results and impairment triggers.

The alleged low‑grade ore misrepresentation was found to be semantically inaccurate, and an alleged schedule misrepresentation had not been pleaded.

Leave to proceed under the Securities Act was therefore refused, and certification was denied, though the individual common law negligence claim could continue.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a class action and approval of a settlement agreement regarding the defendant's sale of daily deal vouchers with allegedly illegal expiration dates.

The court found that the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act were met and that the settlement, which established a $535,000 fund, was fair and reasonable.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $235,000, noting that while pre-allocated fees require strict scrutiny, the amount was justified given the significant non-monetary value of the settlement to the class.

The appellant and respondent entered into a co-habitation agreement acknowledging the appellant's $61,000 net equity in their home.

After separation, the appellant obtained a consent judgment for the amount.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy and was discharged.

The appellant appealed the discharge, arguing for the first time that the $61,000 was a contingent obligation for future spousal support that should survive bankruptcy under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was a transparent attempt to shelter the debt from bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the agreement clearly related to the appellant's net equity in the matrimonial home.