Scott M. Kugler

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach brought motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examinations of two affiants and an omnibus motion to strike out various affidavits, factum paragraphs, and a sealing motion.

The court dismissed the refusals motions, finding the questions asked were beyond the narrow scope of the underlying motions (an injunction motion and a sealing motion) and were properly refused.

The court also dismissed the omnibus motion, finding no reason to strike the evidence or alter the timetable for the upcoming jurisdiction and certification motions.

Epix Resource Finance Corporation applied for an order under section 127 of the Securities Act against Aberdeen International Inc., alleging Aberdeen failed to comply with obligations applicable to non-redeemable investment funds.

The Commission considered whether Epix should be granted standing to proceed as a private party.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that Epix failed to demonstrate it was in the public interest to bypass Commission Staff's usual gatekeeper processes and policy-based filtering.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce undertakings and refusals from cross-examinations and for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of an oppression application.

The court held that questions regarding the existence of directors' and officers' insurance policies need not be answered, as the rules compelling disclosure of insurance in actions do not apply to applications where discovery is not available.

However, questions regarding the corporation's financial statements were ordered to be answered.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file a supplementary affidavit based on newly disclosed financial information.

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 appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to compel answers and document production regarding communications between the respondent and its counsel.

The appellant alleged the respondent used false evidence to procure her prosecution by IIROC, arguing the fraud/crime exception to solicitor-client privilege applied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case that the communications were made to facilitate a crime or civil wrong, as the false information had no bearing on the regulatory investigation.

This is a case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an appeal from an interlocutory order.

The endorsement sets out the schedule for the appeal hearing, which will be conducted as a video conference, and details requirements for electronic document submission, including formatting, hyperlinking authorities, and preparing compendiums.

It also reminds counsel to address costs in advance.

This decision addresses the costs of a previously dismissed motion brought by Kunicyn.

Industrial Alliance Securities Inc. (IAS) and Lise Douville, as successful respondents to the motion, sought substantial indemnity costs due to Kunicyn's unproven serious allegations of conspiracy and fraud against them and their counsel.

The court found that such allegations warranted increased costs and awarded substantial indemnity costs, adjusted for proportionality.

IAS was awarded $35,000 and Douville $25,000, to be paid by Kunicyn.

The plaintiff sought leave to proceed with a class action for secondary market misrepresentation against a company and its officers.

The claims arose from an unauthorized investment made by the CEO, which was not fully disclosed in subsequent financial statements and press releases.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility that the CFO knew or deliberately avoided knowing about the unauthorized investment, and that a press release announcing the CEO's departure constituted a public correction, signaling concerns about the CEO's conduct related to the investment.

The Plaintiffs in a class action sought court approval for a settlement agreement, a distribution plan, an honorarium for representative plaintiffs, and Class Counsel's fees and disbursements.

The class action, initiated in 2012, involved common law misrepresentation and statutory claims under the Ontario Securities Act for secondary market misrepresentations against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and its officers/directors.

After extensive litigation, including interlocutory motions, discovery, and two mediations, a settlement of $110 million was reached.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the complexities and risks of the litigation.

The distribution plan and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were also approved.

Class Counsel's fee request of $25.25 million (22.95% of the settlement) plus disbursements and taxes was approved, recognizing the significant risk undertaken and the results achieved.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of a proposed securities class action for settlement purposes.

The action alleged misrepresentations regarding mineral resource estimates.

Following a recent legal decision that would likely render the plaintiff's statutory claim statute-barred, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the defendants would pay $250,000 to the class.

The court found that all criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the motion.

In a national class action alleging price fixing in the Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) market, the representative plaintiff sought approval of multiple settlement agreements with several defendant manufacturers under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed settlements totalled $3,050,000 and followed earlier settlements with other defendants.

The court considered whether the agreements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and reviewed the proposed distribution protocol, administration protocol, claims administrator appointment, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honorarium.

The court approved the settlements, associated distribution and administration plans, class counsel fees and disbursements, and dismissed the remaining claim against the final defendant.

The court accepted the settlements as falling within the zone of reasonableness and consistent with the interests of the class.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim in a securities class action to add further particulars of wrongful conduct underlying their misrepresentation claims against the corporate respondent.

The motion judge denied leave for most of the amendments, finding they constituted discrete misrepresentation claims requiring fresh leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act, and were statute-barred under s. 138.14(1).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, with one limited exception permitting the appellants to plead a narrower omission allegation relating to previously pleaded facts.

The appellant franchisor appealed an order declaring that provisions in its standard franchise agreement requiring franchisees to release the franchisor from liability as a condition of renewal or transfer were void and unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that such releases violate sections 4 and 11 of the Arthur Wishart Act by forcing franchisees to waive statutory rights and interfering with their right to associate in a class proceeding.

The Court also upheld the application of Ontario law to franchisees operating outside the province due to the agreement's choice of law clause.

The appellant landlord and its related corporate tenant appealed an order granting the respondent franchisor specific performance of an option to lease agreement.

The application judge found that the landlord and tenant acted in concert to frustrate the franchisor's attempt to enforce the option after the tenant terminated its franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that the parties acted in concert, that the option agreement's true intent did not require the application of contra proferentem, and that the commercial premises possessed the requisite uniqueness to justify specific performance.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its action to compel the sale of monitoring accounts and the award of $50,000 in punitive damages against it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, finding that while the trial judge's waiver and implied term analysis was legally flawed, her factual findings supported the conclusion that the appellant was estopped from insisting on its contractual rights due to its negotiating strategy.

However, the Court set aside the punitive damages award, noting that punitive damages are rare in commercial cases, the conduct merely 'approached' the required standard, and there was no independent actionable wrong.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's refusal to strike out the plaintiff's claims for 'knowing assistance of breach of fiduciary duty' and 'assisting or facilitating breach of contract' in a proposed class action arising from investments in a hedge fund.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding the existence of the tort of assisting breach of contract, and good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision regarding knowing assistance of breach of fiduciary duty given the plaintiff was not a client of the defendants.

The issues were deemed to be of general importance to the investment industry.