Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-685386-00CP DATE: 20230426 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ciardullo et al. AND 1832 Asset Management L.P. et al.

BEFORE: J.T. Akbarali J.

COUNSEL: Michael Robb, Garth Myers, Anthony O’Brien, Garrett M. Hunter and Katherine Shapiro, for the 2018 plaintiffs Paul Guy, Serge Kalloghlian and Garth Myers, for the 2022 plaintiffs Andrea Laing and Daniel Szirmak, for the defendant RBC Global Asset Management Inc. and RBC Investor Services Trust Adrian Pel and Nadine Tawdy, for the defendant BMO Investments Inc. Noam Uri, for the defendant TD Asset Management Inc. Caroline Humphrey, for the defendant 1832 Asset Management L.P. Andrew Faith and Brookelyn Kirkham, for the defendants National Bank Investments Inc. and Natcan Trust Company Linda Plumpton and Gillian Dingle, for the defendants Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and CIBC Trust Corporation David Di Paolo and Graham Splawski, for the defendants Mackenzie Financial Corporation and Mackenzie Financial Capital Corporation

HEARD: April 14, 2023

Endorsement

[1] I have recently been appointed as case management judge over a series of related actions. The first set were commenced in 2018: Sage v. 1832 Asset Management L.P., Court File No. CV-18-600380-00CP; Gilani v. BMO Investments Inc., Court File No. CV-18-00611748-00CP; Pozgaj v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., Court File No. CV-18-00605345-00CP; Pozgaj v. Mackenzie Financial Corporation et al., Court File No. CV-18-00610311-00CP; Pozgaj v. National Bank Investments Inc. et al., Court File No. CV-18-00611745-00CP; Ross v. RBC Global Asset Management Inc. et al., Court File No. CV-18-00611743-00CP; and Westwood v. TD Asset Management Inc., Court File No. CV-18-595380-00CP. Siskinds LLP is class counsel on these actions, some of which have been certified.

[2] The second set of actions were commenced in 2020: Ciardullo v. 1832 Asset Management L.P. et al., Court File No. CV-22-684723-00CP, Ciardullo et al. v. 1832 Asset Management L.P. et al., Court File No. CV-22-685386-00CP, Yeats v. 1832 Asset Management L.P., Court File No. CV-22-690373-00CP, Woodard v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., Court File No. CV-22-690374-00CP, and Yeats v. BMO Investments Inc., Court File No. CV-22-690519-00CP, DeJong v. RBC Global Asset Management Inc. et al., CV-22- 691343-00CP, and Aggarwal v. TD Asset Management Inc., CV-22-691344-00CP. Kalloghlian Myers LLP is counsel on these actions.

[3] The 2018 and 2022 actions are against the same defendants. They relate to the same events. There is significant overlap between them.

[4] The 2018 plaintiffs have brought a motion to stay the 2022 actions temporarily. The 2022 plaintiffs resist the stay motion. The motion was scheduled to be heard in March 2023, but could not be finished at that time for reasons outside of the parties’ control. The actions having been subsequently transferred to me to manage, it is necessary to schedule the stay motion.

[5] Although the motion is an omnibus motion, and applies to all the actions, the parties have brought it under the style of cause listed on this endorsement. However, my endorsement applies to all the actions described in paragraphs one and two, above.

[6] The defendants have asked me to hear the stay motion together with their intended motions for summary judgment, dismissing the 2020 claims on the basis of a limitation period defence. They state that there will be overlap in the factual record, and in any event, even if a temporary stay is granted, the limitation period question will eventually have to be addressed.

[7] The 2018 plaintiffs oppose this idea: they argue that their claims have been and will continue to be delayed by the 2020 actions, and the stay motion ought to proceed as soon as possible.

[8] For their part, the 2020 plaintiffs argue that if the stay motion is delayed so as to permit the summary judgment motions to be heard at the same time, their certification motion ought also to proceed at that time.

[9] I asked the parties to provide me with the draft notices of motion on the summary judgment motion and the factums on the stay motion to give me a better understanding of the scope of the issues for purposes of determining the sequence of the motions.

[10] Having reviewed the material counsel has provided, I direct that the motion to stay shall be heard first, on June 28, 2023 at 10 a.m. for one half day. I am not satisfied that there are significant efficiencies to be gained by hearing the summary judgment motions and the stay motion together. Whatever efficiencies may exist do not justify delaying the hearing of the stay motion.

[11] Should the defendants wish to proceed to deal with the limitations issue in a parallel process (i.e., whether or not the stay is granted), they may seek to schedule another case conference to raise the possibility and I will hear from all parties on whether it makes sense to proceed to schedule the summary judgment motions. In my view, the certification motions, if required, ought not to take place until after the summary judgment motions are determined.

[12] I understand that no CaseLines bundle has been created for this matter. The court will provide counsel with a CaseLines link in order that the material for the stay motion can be uploaded.

[13] I make the following directions with respect to the electronic documents:

a. All materials shall be uploaded to CaseLines by June 12, 2023. The parties must take care to ensure that their materials are uploaded into the correct bundle, i.e. motion materials into the correct motion bundle.

b. All materials shall be hyperlinked, including references to the evidence and law in the factums, and references to exhibits in the affidavits. Links to the law in the factum should link to the portion of the decision on which counsel relies. Affidavits and/or exhibits to affidavits shall not be uploaded as separate documents in CaseLines but rather uploaded as part of a volume in a motion record.

c. All indices must hyperlink to the documents described in them, and all documents must link back to the index of the volume in which they are contained. The parties must confirm that the hyperlinks are working on CaseLines, and specifically that in uploading the documents to CaseLines, the hyperlinks have not been scrubbed.

d. The book of authorities shall consist of a hyperlinked index, and copies of any cases that are not available online.

e. The parties should attempt to agree on costs in advance of the motion, if possible. If not possible, costs outlines shall be uploaded by the outset of the motion, along with any offers to settle, which shall be clearly marked so that I do not inadvertently view them prior to determining the motion on the merits.

f. The parties shall, when listing on their Motion Confirmation Form the “Materials Filed and to be Relied on at the Hearing”, include CaseLines document numbers and page references for each document.

g. The parties shall come prepared to argue the motion using CaseLines page numbers, and shall confer with each other to ensure all parties are using the same set of page numbers (i.e., either the master or the current). The parties may wish to use the “direct to” feature or presentation mode on CaseLines.

h. The parties shall email a word copy of their factums, and a word copy of their proposed draft order or judgment, to my assistant in advance of the motion.

i. Once documents have been uploaded to CaseLines, they shall not be removed, even if to correct technical errors, without first confirming with my assistant that they may be removed.

j. Unless they are relevant for some reason, affidavits of service shall not be uploaded into CaseLines.

k. The parties are reminded that technical support for CaseLines is available by telephoning 1-800-290-9378.

l. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the matter not proceeding at the designated time.

J.T. Akbarali J. Date: April 26, 2023