Sinziana Ruxandra Hennig

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.

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.

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 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.

This motion concerned the approval of class counsel's retainer agreement, fees, and disbursements following a partial settlement in a price-fixing class action.

The plaintiff class counsel sought approval for 25% of the settlement amount ($2.35 million) as fees, plus disbursements and interest.

The court reviewed the retainer agreements for compliance with the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and assessed the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements based on established factors.

The court approved the retainer agreements and the requested fees and most disbursements, but declined to approve interest on disbursements at this stage, pending further developments in the ongoing litigation.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a class action settlement agreement with the Panasonic defendants in a price-fixing conspiracy action concerning linear resistors.

The settlement included a monetary payment of $2,350,000 and significant cooperation from the Panasonic defendants to assist in prosecuting the action against non-settling defendants.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the arm's length negotiations, the benefits of cooperation, and the risks of continued litigation.

However, the court rejected a proposed term in the draft order that would allow class counsel to use settlement funds for future disbursements, citing concerns about retainer agreements and counsel's financial risks.

The appellant sought to set aside an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant was a fully informed participant in the settlement, acting on legal advice, and knowingly entered into the settlement structured in the manner challenged on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no illegality or impropriety in the enforcement of the settlement and upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce it.

The court also upheld the costs award made by the motion judge.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The Minister of Finance reassessed BFL Canada Risk and Insurance Services Inc. for a late retail sales tax return, imposing an administrative penalty.

BFL sought an extension and penalty waiver based on extenuating circumstances, which the Minister rejected.

BFL appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, challenging the Minister's refusal to apply its Extenuating Circumstances Policy.

The Minister argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, asserting the matter should proceed by judicial review in Divisional Court.

The motion addressed the question of law regarding the Superior Court's jurisdiction under s. 25(1) of the Retail Sales Tax Act to vacate or vary a tax assessment based on the Minister's discretionary decisions.

The court found that the Superior Court has jurisdiction, as the RSTA's appeal mechanism is broad and not limited to the validity and correctness of an assessment, nor does it immunize discretionary decisions.