Sakina Babwani

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

This appeal concerns the admissibility of fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's jurisdictional decision under the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the Divisional Court's ruling that such applications are hearings de novo, allowing parties to introduce evidence not previously before the arbitral tribunal, and that the "competence-competence" principle does not limit the court's fact-finding ability in this context.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's decision to admit the fresh evidence.

This decision addresses the costs of an application brought by the applicant under the Co-operative Corporations Act, which was dismissed due to the applicant's inability to proceed and lack of proper leave.

The applicant, Angelique Codina, sought injunctive and other relief but failed to obtain the required court order under s. 68(2) of the Act before commencing the action.

The application was adjourned multiple times due to the applicant's incarceration and her inability to effectively pursue the matter or find other co-op members to assume carriage.

The court dismissed the application on procedural grounds and considered the respondents' request for costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining their request for substantial indemnity, as the dismissal was procedural and not on the merits of the allegations.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal for delay in a Simplified Procedure action concerning an alleged breach of a commercial lease.

The action was dismissed after five years due to a combination of prior counsel's inaction, misguided procedural steps including an improperly obtained default judgment, and current counsel's inadvertence in tracking the five-year anniversary.

Applying the Reid Factors, the court found the motion was brought promptly, the delay was largely explained by counsel changes and errors, and the defendants failed to establish non-compensable prejudice.

Emphasizing the policy of resolving disputes on their merits, especially when dismissal results from counsel's error, the court granted the motion, setting aside the dismissal.

No costs were awarded, as the defendants' costs were deemed unreasonable and avoidable.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion brought by HGR (defendants in a related solicitor negligence action) for trial together and common discoveries in two related actions.

The court had previously granted the request for trial together but dismissed common discoveries.

Both HGR and Mr. Hurst (the plaintiff) claimed substantial success.

The court found divided success but determined HGR was overall more successful.

HGR sought $12,000 in costs, and the court ordered Mr. Hurst to pay HGR $8,500.

The court also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a special circumstance to defer the payment of costs.

The parties, equal shareholders and directors of two closely-held houseware liquidation companies, experienced a breakdown in their business relationship.

The applicant sought leave to bring derivative actions against the respondent for alleged self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as an interlocutory injunction to remove him as a director.

The respondent brought cross-applications to wind up the companies, claiming the parties were deadlocked and had previously agreed to wind up the business.

The court granted leave for the derivative actions, finding a well-founded basis for the claims.

However, the court dismissed the request for an interlocutory injunction, finding no irreparable harm.

The court also declined to order a winding-up at this stage, directing that the cross-applications be tried together with the derivative and oppression actions, as viva voce evidence was required to resolve credibility issues and determine the appropriate remedy.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision to deny their request for an extension of time to set an action down for trial.

The appellants claimed the motion judge committed legal errors and palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellants failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate that the respondent would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

The court found the medical evidence inadequate to establish that the appellant's medical condition prevented prosecution of the lawsuit, and noted that despite the pre-existing condition, the appellant had advanced litigation until 2015 and pursued another related action to conclusion in 2018.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff, Product Pro Industrial Supplies Inc., moved for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, Sheam Yee Wang and KTS Consulting, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and unfair competition.

The court found a strong prima facie case that Wang owed fiduciary duties to Product Pro, noting his role as "Director of Operations" and contractual obligations.

Irreparable harm in the form of loss of goodwill and market share was established.

The court also found the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, rejecting the "unclean hands" defense.

An interlocutory injunction was granted for 12 months, restraining the Wang Defendants from soliciting Product Pro's customers or potential customers contacted before March 21, 2019.

The plaintiff was successful on the defendants’ motions to set aside default judgment and noting in default, and on its own motion for default judgment against Peter Duric.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging Mr. Duric was not transparent.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding that while Mr. Duric materially changed his evidence, his conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible conduct required for substantial indemnity costs.

The court adjusted the plaintiff's claimed costs, reducing the amount against Leeds due to prior awards, but largely accepting the time claimed for other services.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment against Leeds Contracting Restoration Inc. and moved for default judgment against Peter Duric.

The defendants cross-moved to set aside the default judgment against Leeds and the noting in default against both defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding that Peter Duric failed to prove he did not receive notice of the statement of claim and failed to demonstrate an arguable defence with supporting evidence.

The court also validated service on Leeds through Peter Duric.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Peter Duric for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act was granted.

The applicant, a co-founder and equal shareholder of Boothworks Inc., was dismissed and removed as a director and officer by the other two co-founders.

The applicant sought a fair market value purchase of his shares, alleging oppression.

The respondents counter-applied, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and seeking damages for loss of a major client (Spin Master) that had a personal relationship with the applicant.

The court found that the respondents' actions constituted oppression, as they unfairly disregarded the applicant's reasonable expectations of equality in the company.

The court dismissed the counter-application, finding no breach of fiduciary duty by the applicant or other counter-respondents, as the client relationship was personal to the applicant and not an asset of Boothworks.

The court ordered the respondents to purchase the applicant's shares at fair market value, with specific valuation guidelines.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest and to amend their Statement of Defence to plead the Limitations Act.

The court allowed the amendment to the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff at this early stage.

However, the court dismissed the request to remove counsel, finding no evidence that counsel acquired confidential information relevant to the current litigation during a prior, unrelated retainer.