Samuel Robinson

The plaintiff sought approval of a settlement and class counsel fees in a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by the defendant regarding a cannabis cultivation project.

The court found the settlement, which exhausted available insurance and included a $1,000,000 contribution from the defendant, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the plan of allocation, a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and class counsel fees of $1,650,000, representing 30% of the settlement amount.

The parties agreed to a timetable for the plaintiff's upcoming motion, with the hearing scheduled for May 5 and 6, 2020.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing to set a litigation timetable for actions commenced over six years prior regarding failed investments.

The responding defendants sought to dismiss the actions for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for a three-year period of delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to fading memories and lost documents.

The actions were dismissed for delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order holding that a class action statement of claim disclosed a viable cause of action for knowing assistance in breach of trust.

The motion judge had struck a claim for breach of fiduciary duty but allowed the knowing assistance claim to proceed under the test applicable to Rule 21 and s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act.

Applying Rule 62.02(4)(b), the court considered whether there was reason to doubt the correctness of the order and whether the proposed appeal raised matters of general importance beyond the interests of the parties.

The court held that the proposed appeal concerned only the application of well‑established pleading principles and did not raise issues of broader legal significance.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that two life insurance policies had a cash surrender value exceeding $18 million and claimed damages for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay.

The insurer denied liability and counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff participated in a fraudulent scheme with a senior company actuary to inflate policy values and withdraw funds far exceeding deposits.

After reviewing extensive accounting evidence and testimony, the court found the plaintiff’s evidence unreliable and accepted that the actuary had falsified documents and inflated values in exchange for bribes from the plaintiff.

The court concluded the plaintiff knowingly assisted a breach of fiduciary duty and committed civil fraud.

The policies were declared overdrawn and terminated, and the insurer was awarded damages equal to the misappropriated funds plus punitive damages.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to strike a jury notice in a complex insurance dispute involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and disputed policy values.

The plaintiff sought declarations regarding the validity and terms of two life insurance policies and their cash surrender values, while also claiming substantial damages.

The court held that the core issues concerned the legal status and interpretation of the insurance agreements, constituting declaratory relief within the meaning of s. 108 of the Courts of Justice Act, which mandates that such claims be tried without a jury.

The court further found that the extensive factual issues, competing expert actuarial and forensic accounting evidence, and complex legal doctrines rendered the case unsuitable for jury determination.

The jury notice was therefore struck.