Ronald Podolny

The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Coinbase Europe Limited, and Coinbase Canada Inc., brought a motion to dismiss a putative class action for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, to permanently stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Ontario securities legislation by distributing crypto assets without complying with prospectus requirements.

The court found presence-based jurisdiction only over Coinbase Canada Inc. due to its business activities in Ontario.

However, the court found no presence-based, consent-based, or assumed jurisdiction over Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., or Coinbase Global.

Consequently, the action against Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., and Coinbase Global was dismissed.

The court then considered forum non conveniens for Coinbase Canada Inc., concluding that Ireland was a clearly more appropriate forum given that the plaintiff's claims arose from transactions with Coinbase Europe, which was domiciled in Ireland, and the lack of a class action framework in Ireland was not a decisive juridical disadvantage.

The action against Coinbase Canada Inc. was permanently stayed.

This motion sought consent certification of a class action for settlement purposes and leave to discontinue certain causes of action related to defects in General Motors vehicles' ignition switches and other components.

The plaintiffs sought to certify economic loss claims while discontinuing claims for wrongful death, personal injury, and physical property damage.

The court granted the motion, finding that the discontinuance was appropriate as personal injury claimants were not prejudiced and could pursue individual claims or participate in a separate settlement scheme.

The court also found that the criteria for consent certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in a settlement context, and approved the proposed notice program and settlement administrator.

The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of a Special Committee report, three due diligence legal opinions, and answers to questions about missing marijuana inventory.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Special Committee report and the legal opinions were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the privilege had not been waived.

The court also held that the questions regarding the missing marijuana were irrelevant and disproportionate.

The plaintiffs brought a class action against mutual fund managers for allowing certain investors to engage in frequent short-term trading (market timing/time zone arbitrage), which allegedly diluted the returns of long-term unitholders.

The court found that the defendants owed a duty of care to the funds and breached the standard of care by failing to prevent, and actively facilitating, frequent short-term trading contrary to their prospectuses.

However, the court dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, finding no bad faith or dishonesty.

The matter was directed to proceed to a damages trial.

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion to stay a production order issued by Perell J. pending the disposition of their appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and ordered the stay.

In a proposed class action arising from a data breach of Marriott's hotel reservation database, the parties stated a question of law under Rule 21(1)(a) as to whether the plaintiff pleaded a legally viable cause of action for intrusion on seclusion.

The plaintiff argued that Marriott, by allegedly obtaining data under false pretenses and failing to protect it, was a 'constructive intruder'.

The court rejected this argument, following binding precedent that the tort of intrusion on seclusion applies only to actual intruders, not to defendants who fail to prevent a third-party hack.

The court concluded the Statement of Claim did not disclose a cause of action for intrusion on seclusion against Marriott.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a $125 million settlement in a class action against a major bank for secondary market misrepresentation related to subprime mortgage investments.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of class counsel fees of $37.5 million, representing a 30% contingency fee.

The court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable, noting the significant litigation risks the plaintiffs faced, including a due diligence defence and challenges to damages calculations.

The court also approved the requested counsel fees, emphasizing the substantial risk undertaken by class counsel over 14 years of litigation and the excellent result achieved for the class.

The moving parties sought an interlocutory stay of an order requiring them to disclose identifying information of primary market investors, pending their motion for leave to appeal that order.

The Divisional Court granted the stay on an interim basis, finding that the motion for leave to appeal had some prospect of success, the moving parties would suffer irreparable harm if the disclosure was made before the leave motion was decided, and the balance of convenience favoured a brief delay.

The court emphasized that interim stays pending leave to appeal should be addressed expeditiously to minimize prejudice.

The applicant sought damages of $137,772 for losses incurred in a foreign exchange trading account managed by the respondent, who was not registered with the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant brought the matter as an application, alleging negligence, misrepresentation, and unconscionability.

The court found that material facts were in dispute, particularly regarding the applicant's level of investment knowledge and the true nature of the parties' relationship, which required credibility assessments.

Consequently, the court ordered the application converted into an action pursuant to Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court issued a file direction/order in a long-standing class action concerning alleged market timing by mutual funds.

The order set a peremptory trial date for January 10, 2022, for a maximum 40-day trial, conditional on the parties approving a detailed Trial Agenda by September 30, 2021.

The judge emphasized the need for the action to be genuinely ready for trial and for the Trial Agenda to be strictly adhered to, subject to judicial leave for variations.

The defendants brought motions across five Canadian jurisdictions to address overlapping multijurisdictional class actions regarding a data breach.

The parties reached a settlement to proceed only with the Ontario national class action and stay the actions in British Columbia, Alberta, Québec, and Nova Scotia.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved the consent order dismissing the stay motion in Ontario, allowing the action to proceed subject to bi-annual reporting requirements to the case management judges in the other jurisdictions.

The Quebec Plaintiffs and the Defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. dated November 21, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

Costs of $2,500 were ordered payable by each of the moving parties to the responding Ontario Plaintiffs.

Case management endorsement scheduling a motion to determine whether a motion for leave to appeal a carriage decision in a proposed securities class action is stayed by an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court directed the responding party to bring a motion to stay the leave application, to be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The Ontario Plaintiff moved to quash the Quebec Plaintiff's appeal of an order dismissing a motion to stay the Ontario class action.

The Court of Appeal held that the refusal to stay the Ontario Action is an interlocutory order, not a final order, because it does not determine any substantive right to relief or substantive defence.

As the order is interlocutory, the appeal lies to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs in a Quebec class action and the defendants brought motions to stay a parallel Ontario class action alleging securities misrepresentations.

The moving parties argued the Ontario action was duplicative and an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Ontario action was more comprehensive and not duplicative of the Quebec action when it was filed.

The court held that issues of preferability between parallel multi-jurisdictional class actions are better addressed at the certification stage rather than through a pre-certification stay motion for abuse of process.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the statements of claim in four related actions against the defendant Adam Abramson, arguing that the pleadings, even with particulars, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had not pleaded sufficient material facts to establish specific causes of action (negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and conspiracy) against Adam Abramson individually.

The court emphasized that merely grouping defendants together was insufficient to provide Adam Abramson with adequate notice of the case against him.

However, the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their statements of claim.

The Plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement, a distribution plan, an honorarium for representative plaintiffs, and Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The class action, initiated in 2012, involved common law misrepresentation and statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act for secondary market misrepresentations against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and its officers/directors.

After extensive litigation, including interlocutory motions, discovery, and two mediations, a settlement of $110 million was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the complexities and risks of the litigation.

The distribution plan and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were also approved.

Class Counsel's fee request of $25.25 million (22.95% of the settlement) plus disbursements and taxes was approved, recognizing the significant risk undertaken and the results achieved.

This addendum corrects an error in a previous costs decision (2018 ONSC 4862) regarding the amount of costs requested by Brewers Retail Inc. The original decision mistakenly stated Brewers Retail requested $600,000 on a partial indemnity basis, when the correct amount, based on an amended bill of costs, was $744,396.42, all inclusive, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court confirmed the costs award subject to this correction.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totalling approximately $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued that the costs should be reduced to $600,000 in the aggregate, asserting that the case was not complex, was in the public interest, raised novel points of law, and that a large costs award would have a chilling effect on class actions.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the litigation was primarily commercial, involved complex issues, and that the normal costs rules should apply.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs, subject to a reduction of one expert witness's fee.

The plaintiffs in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the foreign exchange market brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add BMO and TD as defendants.

The proposed defendants argued the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs claimed they only discovered the involvement of BMO and TD after receiving a proffer of evidence from a settling defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the claims against BMO and TD before the expiry of the limitation period.