Sarah J. Armstrong

The plaintiffs in this proposed class action sought production of documents from Patrick Sheridan, a non-party and former executive of Guyana Goldfields Inc., relating to alleged misrepresentations and governance failures at the company.

The court granted the motion for non-party production, finding the documents highly relevant to the core issues in the action and necessary for a fair adjudication of the leave and certification motions.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the motion was premature or a “fishing expedition,” emphasizing that the plaintiffs knew exactly what documents they sought and that Sheridan was uniquely positioned to provide them.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

This decision concerns the approval of a settlement and a plan of allocation in a securities class action, along with class counsel's fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff sought approval for a US$3 million settlement with the Gatos Defendants and Electrum Group entities, following an earlier settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants.

The court found the Gatos Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was reached through arm's length negotiations and recovered a significant portion of estimated damages despite litigation risks.

Class counsel's requested fees (25% contingency) and disbursements were also approved as fair and reasonable, considering the complexity and risks of the multi-stage litigation.

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

This decision approves a class action settlement and class counsel fees in a case involving optionally retrievable inferior vena cava filters.

The class action alleged that the defendants failed to properly warn of increased risks of complications.

The settlement provides for a claims-made pool for significant claims and a second pool for administration, notice, and legal fees.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the litigation risks and complexity.

Class counsel's requested fees, which were less than their docketed time, were also approved as reasonable given the results achieved and risks undertaken.

The Plaintiffs sought an order confirming personal service or permitting substituted service of their Rule 30.10 Motion Record for Production of Information on Patrick Sheridan, a non-party.

The evidence suggested Mr. Sheridan, a former executive of the corporate Defendant, was evading service.

The Defendants took no position on the relief sought.

The court validated the service effected on Mr. Sheridan at his place of business under Rule 16.02(1)(e) and Rule 16.08, finding that the material had come to his notice.

The court ordered Mr. Sheridan to pay $2,000 in costs to the Plaintiffs due to his evasion of service.

This is a securities class action where the Plaintiff sought approval of a settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants and pre-settlement orders for a proposed settlement with the Gatos Defendants.

The court approved the C$1,000,000 settlement with the Tetra Tech Defendants, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

For the Gatos Defendants, the court granted leave to proceed under section 138.8 of the Securities Act, certified the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes, and approved the proposed notice plan and ancillary orders, paving the way for a future US$3,000,000 settlement approval motion.

The representative plaintiffs in a certified class action against Cook (Canada) Inc., Cook Incorporated, and William Cook Europe APS moved for court approval of a notice plan for a proposed settlement.

The class action concerned optionally retrievable inferior vena cava filters.

The court reviewed the proposed short-form and long-form notices and the dissemination plan, finding them compliant with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The motion for approval of the notice plan was granted.

In a securities class action, the plaintiff sought multiple orders in advance of a settlement approval motion.

The plaintiff requested leave to proceed against Tetra Tech, Inc. under the Securities Act, leave to discontinue common law negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against Tetra Tech, and certification of the action as a class proceeding against Tetra Tech for settlement purposes.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought approval to discontinue the action against the Underwriter Defendants based on a Standstill and Tolling Agreement.

The court granted all requested orders, finding that the criteria for leave and certification were met and that the discontinuance against the Underwriter Defendants would not prejudice the class.

This appeal concerns the applicability of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to "Database Defendants" (entities that collect and store personal information) when a data breach occurs due to the alleged negligence or recklessness of the defendant, but the actual intrusion is committed by independent third-party hackers.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as defined in Jones v. Tsige, requires an act of intrusion by the defendant itself, not merely a failure to prevent intrusion by others.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plaintiffs' claim, which alleged Equifax's failure to protect data from hackers, did not disclose a viable cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion against Equifax.

The Plaintiffs (Bondfield Construction Company Limited and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.) brought a motion to stay summary judgment motions initiated by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) in complex professional negligence actions against auditors, which also involved significant fraud allegations and discoverability issues.

The court, acting as case management judge, granted the stay, determining that full documentary and oral discoveries were essential to ensure a fair and efficient process.

The decision highlighted the complexity of the case, the substantial damages sought, the allegations of long-standing fraudulent activities, and the potential for inconsistent findings if the summary judgment motions proceeded on a limited record.

The court emphasized the flexibility of judges in case-managed matters and the necessity of a comprehensive record for a just adjudication of limitation period issues.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a $240 billion class action against a financial institution and a cloud storage provider following a massive data breach perpetrated by a former employee of the storage provider.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence, and negligence, arguing that the defendants misappropriated and misused the class members' personal information by retaining and aggregating it beyond its initial purpose.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim egregiously contravened the rules of pleading and failed to disclose any legally viable causes of action against the corporate defendants.

The pleading was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The plaintiffs in two proposed class actions sought court approval under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to dismiss their actions against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) with prejudice and without costs, and to discontinue the actions against the non-settling defendants without prejudice and without costs.

This motion was brought to implement a $30 million settlement reached with PwC in a parallel, national class action proceeding in Québec, which had already been approved by the Québec Superior Court.

The court granted the requested orders, finding that the interests of the putative class members in Ontario would not be prejudiced, as they could participate in the Québec settlement and broad notice had been provided regarding the impact on their rights.

This appeal concerns an auditor's liability action arising from the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The appellants, three Fairfield feeder funds incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, invested in Madoff's company and suffered losses when the fraud was revealed in December 2008.

The funds sued PricewaterhouseCoopers for breach of contract and negligence in auditing their financial statements for 2006 and 2007, claiming damages of approximately $2.5 billion.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that no damages were suffered, applying the Livent damages methodology.

The appellants appealed on five grounds, all involving findings of fact or mixed fact and law regarding the calculation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's analysis.

This decision addresses several procedural and evidentiary motions within a proposed class action.

M.M. sought to discontinue her action against Ms. Denham.

The Society sought to convert its crossclaim against Ms. Denham into a third-party claim, convert Ms. Denham's crossclaim into a counterclaim, have the third-party action case managed in Toronto with the class action, and obtain a sealing order.

Ms. Denham opposed the Toronto case management and requested a transfer to Perth/East Region.

The court granted the sealing order, M.M.'s discontinuance, the conversion of claims, and the joint case management/trial.

Crucially, the court conditionally transferred the class action and third-party proceedings to the East Region, finding no advantage to Toronto management beyond counsel convenience and significant inconvenience to Ms. Denham.

The defendants, an auditing firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $5 billion negligence claim arising from their audits of feeder funds that invested in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors failed to discover the fraud, causing the funds to remain invested and suffer massive losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove any damages.

Applying the plaintiffs' own damages formula, the court concluded that the funds actually benefited from the delayed discovery of the fraud due to net withdrawals and the exclusion of fictitious profits and unasserted liabilities.