Sinziana Ruxandra Hennig

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the Monitor sought directions on the interpretation of a litigation funding agreement and the approved Plan of Arrangement regarding the distribution of funds released from security for costs.

The successful defendants in related litigation argued the funds should be paid to them to satisfy outstanding costs awards.

The court rejected this interpretation, finding the plain wording of the agreements required the funds to be treated as Subsequent Cash on Hand for the benefit of Secured Noteholders.

The court also declined to approve the Monitor's historical activities, noting the expiry of limitation periods rendered such approval unnecessary, but granted the Monitor's discharge.

The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. operated a payday loan business from 2002 until it sought CCAA protection in April 2014.

The company's estate sued its auditor KPMG LLP and counsel Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendants knew or ought to have known that Cash Store was misrepresenting its business as a broker when it was actually a direct lender bearing credit risk, and that this misrepresentation caused a deepening of insolvency from late 2011 until the CCAA filing in 2014.

The plaintiff sought damages ranging from $119 million to $177 million, plus disgorgement of legal fees.

The court dismissed all claims against both defendants, finding that Cash Store was properly characterized as a broker during the relevant period, that the defendants met applicable professional standards, and that the plaintiff failed to prove causation and damages.

The court also found the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase a supermarket business, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts showing acceptance of the agreement, lacked standing, and that the alleged agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Leave to amend was granted only to clarify standing for a claim for return of deposit.

The appellants appealed a certification order in a price-fixing class action regarding packaged bread.

They argued the motions judge erred by excluding indirect purchasers who bought bread from non-defendant retailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly settled the certification order to reflect his reasons and the nature of the single conspiracy pleaded, which required the product to pass through both a defendant producer and a defendant retailer.

This is a costs endorsement following successful motions by the State of California and the Attorney General of Quebec to dismiss claims brought against them by W.O. Stinson & Son Limited.

The court had previously dismissed Stinson's claim against California based on state immunity under the State Immunity Act and against Quebec due to Crown immunity.

Stinson argued for no costs, citing unfair treatment due to the cancellation of Ontario's cap-and-trade program and alleged profit by California and Quebec from Stinson's losses.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no reason to deny costs to the successful parties.

The court then assessed the reasonableness of the requested partial indemnity costs, reducing the amounts sought by both California and Quebec, and specifically reducing Quebec's expert witness disbursement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which had previously dismissed both the appellant's appeal and the respondents' cross-appeal.

The Court determined the costs payable, awarding the primary respondents $50,000 from the appellant, despite the respondents seeking over $71,000 and the appellant proposing $40,000.

The Court was not persuaded by the appellant's public interest argument or the relevance of costs awarded in a comparable case that were based on party agreement.

Additionally, the Law Foundation of Ontario, which responded to the cross-appeal, was awarded $10,000 in costs from the primary respondents.

The Applicants, minority shareholders, sought to enforce a "shotgun" buy/sell provision in a unanimous shareholders agreement (USA) against the Respondent, the majority shareholder.

The Respondent failed to exercise his option to buy or sell within the stipulated 15-day period, arguing the Applicants' buy/sell notice was invalid due to alleged threats of mass resignation by management, bad faith, oppression, and breach of implied terms.

The court found the buy/sell notice strictly complied with the USA and rejected the Respondent's arguments, finding no evidence of unlawful threats or breaches of duty.

The court also denied the Respondent's request to convert the application into a trial and consolidate it with a separate action, emphasizing the purpose of buy/sell provisions for expeditious resolution.

The application was granted, deeming the Respondent to have accepted the offer to sell his shares.

The appellant, John Peters, appealed the dismissal of his motion for leave to bring a statutory cause of action under the Securities Act for alleged failure to disclose a material change, and for class action certification.

The alleged material change was a September 4, 2018, telephone call where the PPSC advised SNC-Lavalin that it would not be invited to negotiate a remediation agreement.

The motion judge found no reasonable possibility that the call constituted a "change" in SNC's business, operations, or capital.

SNC-Lavalin cross-appealed the costs order, which reduced their costs due to the case's legal novelty and public interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, affirming the motion judge's interpretation of "material change" and application of the leave test, and the cross-appeal, upholding the discretionary costs decision.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order excluding from the class for certification persons who claim damages for purchases of packaged bread directly or indirectly sold by a defendant producer without being resold by a defendant retailer.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal on this issue and reserved costs to the panel hearing the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. dated December 31, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions to quash an appeal of a class certification order in a price-fixing conspiracy case involving packaged bread.

The plaintiffs (appellants) argued the certification order, which defined the class, effectively dismissed claims of excluded persons and was thus a final order appealable under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants (moving parties) contended it was a certification order governed by the Class Proceedings Act (CPA) and that, under the CPA's transitional provisions, the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court found the certification order was a procedural order, not a final one, as it did not decide the ultimate merits of any claim.

Consequently, the appeal provisions of the CPA applied.

Furthermore, the court determined that the pre-2020 amendments to the CPA governed the appeal because the original proceeding was commenced before the amendments came into force.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was therefore quashed.

Following the dismissal of their motion for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and for class certification, the plaintiffs brought a consent motion to discontinue the action without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that discontinuance was appropriate and would not prejudice putative class members, as notice of the class proceeding had never been circulated.

The court also approved the proposed Notice of Discontinuance and Notice Plan.

The court held a case conference to settle the terms of a certification order following a decision to certify a class action regarding alleged price-fixing of packaged bread.

The court reviewed competing draft orders and approved the producer defendants' draft with specific amendments, including adjustments to the definition of packaged bread, the class definition, and the retention of constructive trust as a common issue.

The proposed representative plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act to commence a secondary market misrepresentation claim against Maxar Technologies Inc. and its directors/officers, alleging failures to properly impair assets and recognize revenue under IFRS.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert evidence on IFRS due to lack of qualifications and impartiality, and struck portions of their reply evidence as impermissible case-splitting.

Relying on the defendants' admitted expert evidence, the court found no credible evidence that Maxar's financial statements contained material misrepresentations.

The motion for leave was dismissed as there was no reasonable possibility of success at trial, and the related certification motion was consequently dismissed.

Class counsel sought approval of fees representing 25 percent of a $770,000 partial settlement, as well as disbursements.

The court approved the disbursements but declined to approve the requested 25 percent fee at this stage.

The court found the hourly rates used by counsel to be grossly excessive, distorting the value of docketed time.

Noting that the litigation remained in its procedural infancy after six years, the court fixed the fee award at $100,000 plus HST, without prejudice to counsel's right to seek additional amounts upon further settlement or completion of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motions for leave to assert a statutory cause of action under the Securities Act and for certification of a class proceeding, the successful defendants sought costs of $363,184 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for a reduced award of $250,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the case under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court agreed that the case raised a novel point of law and involved a matter of public interest, justifying a reduction in the costs award.

Costs were fixed at $285,000 all-inclusive.

The moving defendants sought a temporary stay of the plaintiff's certification motion pending the determination of a certification motion in a related price-fixing class action involving different electronic components.

The defendants argued that a stay would promote efficiency as the expert evidence and methodology were substantially similar in both actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the actions involved different products, time periods, and parties, and that an indefinite delay would be unfair to the plaintiff class and contrary to the goals of judicial economy and access to justice.

The plaintiff in a proposed price-fixing class action regarding linear resistors brought motions to discontinue the action against six defendants and to certify the action for settlement purposes against the Kamaya defendants.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding no prejudice to the class as tolling agreements were in place and there was no evidence of the discontinued defendants' involvement in the conspiracy.

The court also certified the action for settlement purposes, approving an expanded class definition that included British Columbia purchasers to facilitate a comprehensive settlement with the Kamaya defendants.