Sarah J. Armstrong

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.

The representative plaintiff in a securities class action sought court approval of an $11 million settlement agreement, a plan of distribution, and class counsel fees.

The action alleged that the defendants misrepresented the development costs of a mining project.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks, including proving liability and overcoming statutory liability caps under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the plan of distribution, the appointment of the claims administrator, and class counsel's fee request of $2.75 million (25% of the settlement) plus disbursements, finding them fair and reasonable given the results achieved and risks assumed.

The appellants appealed a decision declining to certify a class action regarding an alleged design defect in digital cameras that caused an 'E18' error message.

The motions judge had struck the evidence of the appellants' proposed expert on the basis that he lacked the necessary qualifications in camera design.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the exclusion of the expert evidence or the conclusion that there was no basis in fact for the common issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying the action as a class proceeding regarding allegedly defective heart devices.

The defendants argued the motions judge misconstrued the 'some basis in fact' standard and that the class definition was overly inclusive.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the evidentiary principles from Hollick v. Toronto and made factual findings entitled to deference.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

Matrix Integrated Solutions Limited appealed an order staying its action against Radiant Hospitality Systems Ltd. based on a forum selection clause in their Reseller Agreement.

Matrix alleged that its former employees breached fiduciary duties and that Radiant conspired with them.

The Court of Appeal held that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy were not contractual in nature and did not arise out of or in connection with the Reseller Agreement.

Therefore, the forum selection clause did not apply.

The appeal was allowed and the stay was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing relief from forfeiture of an option agreement after it was terminated by the respondent due to persistent late payment of rent.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge was entitled to find the late payments constituted a material breach of the tenancy agreement.

Furthermore, the application judge made no error in principle in applying the test for relief from forfeiture under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.