Stephanie Margarete Hedwig Legdon

The representative plaintiff in a securities class action sought court approval of an $11 million settlement agreement, a plan of distribution, and class counsel fees.

The action alleged that the defendants misrepresented the development costs of a mining project.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks, including proving liability and overcoming statutory liability caps under the Securities Act.

The court also approved the plan of distribution, the appointment of the claims administrator, and class counsel's fee request of $2.75 million (25% of the settlement) plus disbursements, finding them fair and reasonable given the results achieved and risks assumed.

Following a trial and related injunction proceedings, the successful party sought recovery of its legal costs.

The court reviewed the cost submissions of both parties and determined that the successful party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to depart from the amounts claimed for trial preparation, attendance, and injunction-related work.

Costs were fixed in a specified amount payable by the opposing party.

Following dismissal of a motion for an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $26,270.93 for the interlocutory proceeding.

The court acknowledged the general presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and that interlocutory costs are ordinarily payable forthwith.

However, given that the underlying dispute raised a serious issue to be tried concerning alleged use of a protected confectionery recipe and related marketing practices, the court concluded that the justice of the case warranted a different approach.

Costs of the motion were therefore reserved to the trial judge, who would be better positioned to assess entitlement in the context of the full record.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from using the term “mint smoothie” to describe a chocolate confection, alleging trademark infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act.

The court accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried given the parties’ relationship, the defendants’ marketing references to family recipes, and the existence of a registered trademark.

However, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm as required by the RJR‑MacDonald test.

Evidence of marketplace confusion was largely hearsay and insufficient, and any potential damages could be quantified.

The balance of convenience also favoured the defendants because the disputed product represented a significant portion of their sales.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against their residential property.

The respondents had obtained the certificate in the context of an oppression remedy claim involving a corporate dispute.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and discharged the certificate, finding that the motions judge erred in law by applying a broad equitable discretion instead of determining whether there was a reasonable claim to an interest in land.

The court concluded that the pleadings did not demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in the land, as the claims were for damages and corporate remedies, not for an interest in the property itself.