Scott M. Kugler

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for abuse of process, arguing that the prior decision in Leavens v. Schwartz (the "Shotgun Decision") had finally disposed of the matter.

The plaintiff sought to challenge a buy/sell transaction that had been enforced by the court, alleging that the defendants had engaged in a secret investment arrangement with third-party financiers without disclosure.

The court found that the claim constituted an abuse of process because the underlying subject matter was identical to the prior proceeding, the issues could have been raised before the prior judge, and the plaintiff was essentially seeking to undo a final court decision with which he was dissatisfied.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against four major airlines, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and suppress the supply of transborder air travel between Canada and the United States.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they contained only bald, unsupported allegations of a conspiracy without material facts.

The court also found no basis in fact for the proposed common issues, noting that the plaintiff's reliance on parallel U.S. litigation regarding domestic travel was insufficient to support a conspiracy in the transborder market.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert methodology for calculating class-wide loss was deemed purely hypothetical, and the representative plaintiff was found inadequate as she purchased her ticket using loyalty points rather than directly from the defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Damodar Arapakota and the Arapakota 2006 Family Trust from the Superior Court’s order dismissing their application for delay.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the presumption of prejudice was not rebutted.

The Court also refused to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained earlier and would not have affected the outcome.

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

This decision approves a class action settlement and distribution protocol regarding predatory and unconscionable equipment lease agreements, including the registration of Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) on consumers’ homes.

The court finds the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the risks of continued litigation, the insolvency of several defendants, and the benefits achieved, including monetary compensation, lease cancellations, and legislative reform.

The court also approves class counsel fees, disbursements, a Class Proceedings Fund levy, and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision to dismiss an application for delay.

The respondents, Robert Saltsman and the "Director Respondents" (Krishnasamy Parthiban, Andrew Lindzon, and Issa Nakhleh), sought costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the dismissal motion and the underlying application.

The applicants argued the costs were excessive.

The court found Mr. Saltsman's claimed costs of $38,696.62 reasonable and fixed them as claimed.

For the Director Respondents, the court allowed their motion costs of $27,177.12 but substantially reduced their application costs from $56,493.15 to $46,846.39 due to insufficient detail justifying the hours claimed for "preparation for the application." The total costs awarded to the Director Respondents were $74,023.51.

The applicants were ordered to pay costs jointly and severally.

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a proposed class action against Capital One and Amazon Web following a data breach.

The motion judge had struck the appellants' pleadings without leave to amend and dismissed their certification motion, finding the case 'doomed to fail'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the pleadings failed to disclose viable causes of action for data misuse (intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence/trust/fiduciary duty) and data breach (negligence, statutory claims).

The Court also upheld the decision to deny leave to amend the pleadings, citing repeated opportunities and the defective nature of the claims.

The appellants' motion for an extension of time to appeal costs was also dismissed.

Following a finding of civil contempt against the defendant for repeatedly forging bank records and lying under oath, the court held a penalty hearing.

Applying criminal sentencing principles, the court weighed aggravating factors, including the deliberate and repeated nature of the deceit, against mitigating factors such as the defendant's eventual remorse and lack of prior record.

The court determined that a significant costs award was the appropriate sanction to punish and deter the conduct, ordering the defendant to pay $400,000 as a penalty, plus $44,118.46 for the costs of the hearing on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Varpio J. dated April 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction against May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc., a finding of contempt against May Anis, and a variation of an order to make May Anis and BNP Advisors Inc. solely responsible for the Receiver's fees.

The motion arose from a shareholder and employment dispute where May Anis repeatedly produced forged bank records, lied under oath, and provided false information to the court and an investigative receiver.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, found May Anis in contempt due to her egregious and repetitive dishonest conduct, and ordered her and BNP Advisors Inc. to bear all Receiver's fees.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of the motion.

Horn Ventures International Inc. appealed the dismissal of its application to compel Xylem to sell it property, arguing that a binding agreement for sale was triggered by waiving a condition in an Offer to Lease.

The key issue was whether the "Obligation to Purchase" provision could be triggered before environmental remediation of the property was completed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation that the obligation to purchase arose only after Xylem advised that remediation was complete, and Horn Ventures could only waive the environmental consultant's certificate, not the completion of remediation itself.

The appeal was dismissed, as no reversible error was found in the application judge's contractual interpretation.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale was binding and an order for specific performance.

The commercial lease contained an obligation for the tenant to purchase the property once the landlord completed environmental remediation and provided a consultant's certificate.

The tenant attempted to trigger the purchase by waiving the requirement for the certificate, even though remediation was not complete.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract required the landlord to first advise that remediation was complete before the tenant could waive the certificate.

The court also held that while the provision was not a true condition precedent, it benefited both parties and could not be unilaterally waived by the tenant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 payable by the moving parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a $13,375,000 settlement in a class action against a fertility doctor who allegedly used incorrect genetic material, including his own, during artificial insemination procedures.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, noting the novel legal issues and the emotional toll of continued litigation.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee of $3,343,750, recognizing the significant risk, time investment, and successful outcome achieved.

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.

The appellant, Xylem Canada Company, appealed an application judge's order declaring that an obligation to purchase, set out in a 1996 lease, remained in effect through subsequent lease renewals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the contractual documents.

The court reiterated that contractual interpretation involves issues of mixed fact and law, entitling the application judge's decision to deference.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement regarding alleged securities misrepresentations by Colt Resources, Inc. The court approved the $950,000 settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the statutory liability limits under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the Plan of Allocation, the notice plan, a $5,000 honorarium for each representative plaintiff due to their exceptional efforts in initiating the claim, and class counsel fees of $300,000 plus disbursements.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.