Robert Gain

In a certified securities class action arising from a take‑over bid, the defendant law firm moved for summary judgment dismissing negligence and statutory misrepresentation claims.

The plaintiff alleged that a partner of the firm, who acted as counsel to the bidder and sat on its board, participated in preparing a take‑over circular containing misrepresentations contrary to s. 131 of the Securities Act.

The court held that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the law firm owed a duty of care to shareholders who received and relied on the circular.

The court further held that the question of whether a law partnership could be vicariously liable under the Partnerships Act for a partner’s statutory liability as a corporate director should also proceed to trial.

Summary judgment was refused because the issues were novel and required a full factual record.

After dismissing an application for a Norwich order compelling a newspaper to reveal confidential sources related to a business news story, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding raised novel and public interest issues linked to a proposed securities class action.

The court held that although the litigation had some public interest elements, it was fundamentally a private claim seeking recovery of trading losses.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and considering the access to justice concerns noted by the Court of Appeal in class action jurisprudence, the court reduced the respondents’ claimed costs but fixed a substantial award.

Costs were ordered against the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a Norwich order compelling a journalist and newspaper to disclose the identities of confidential sources quoted in an article concerning the BCE leveraged buy-out negotiations.

The applicant alleged the sources’ statements were misleading or unlawful under the Securities Act and caused trading losses, and intended to pursue a proposed securities class action against them.

The court applied the Norwich test together with the Wigmore framework for journalist‑source privilege.

It found that any alleged breach of securities law was speculative and minimal, and that the public interest in protecting confidential journalistic sources outweighed the limited interest in disclosure for a civil claim.

The journalist‑source privilege was therefore upheld and disclosure refused.

In a proposed class action alleging a conspiracy among DRAM manufacturers to fix prices, the plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action for settlement purposes against one defendant following a settlement agreement.

The settlement required the defendant to pay $5.75 million for the benefit of class members in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and determined that the criteria for certification were satisfied.

The court also approved the proposed notice and notice plan, which aligned with a similar approval in British Columbia.

The motion was unopposed and the orders were granted as requested.

Following an appeal where the appellants achieved substantial but not total success, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The appellants did not seek costs, and the court determined the respondents were not entitled to costs.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellants, life insurance companies, appealed a trial judgment finding that transactions involving their participating accounts to finance a corporate acquisition breached the Insurance Companies Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the transactions breached the Act by failing to comply with generally accepted accounting principles, improperly allocating expenses, and constituting prohibited transfers.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the remedy, finding that the trial judge's order to return $390 million to the participating accounts via litigation trusts was overly broad and akin to an oppression remedy not available under the Act.

Instead, the Court ordered the transactions unwound as of the present, with adjustments for expense savings already received.

Following a successful appeal by the respondents, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $41,762.66, while the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs for a prior motion.

The Divisional Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the motion and fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $20,000, finding the amount claimed to be beyond what was fair and reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision finding it liable for tax under s. 189(1)(e) of the Mining Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the appellant's acquisition of mineral rights fell within the statutory definition of 'mining rights'.

The court held that the industry distinction between surface rights and surface access rights does not apply for the purpose of tax liability under the Act.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed an order regarding the compellability of two witnesses and the disclosure of certain memoranda, asserting public interest immunity and deliberative secrecy under s. 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while certain paragraphs of one memorandum contained statements of fact not covered by deliberative secrecy, the trial judge erred in finding the public interest in disclosure outweighed deliberative secrecy for the remaining information.

The court restricted the scope of questioning and excluded another memorandum from evidence entirely.