Steve Tenai

The defendant applied for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding regarding breach of contract claims related to prepaid phone card expiry dates.

The court applied the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's order.

The court emphasized that the Class Proceedings Act is remedial and that the certification judge appropriately addressed the commonality of the systemic practices.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In a proposed class proceeding, the plaintiffs sought court approval of a third party litigation funding agreement that would bind the plaintiffs and class members.

Notice of the agreement was provided to the defendants and large shareholder members of the class, and no party opposed the motion.

The court considered prior jurisprudence regarding litigation funding agreements and noted that the proposed agreement contained a scaled and capped commission structure addressing concerns previously raised about third party funding arrangements.

The court found the agreement consistent with the principles articulated in earlier cases and noted it represented a cost saving compared with the Class Proceedings Fund.

The agreement was approved.

Following a certification decision in a proposed consumer class action concerning prepaid phone cards, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $204,000 in partial indemnity costs after succeeding on certification of most proposed common issues.

The court reviewed the costs outline, reduced counsel hourly rates to align with the Rules Committee’s Information to the Profession, and removed an excessive research disbursement.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, historical certification-motion cost averages, and proportionality principles tied to access to justice under the Class Proceedings Act, the court fixed costs at $150,000 all-inclusive payable forthwith by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Bell Mobility regarding the expiry dates on pre-paid phone cards.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the Gift Card Regulation under the Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and unfair practices.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, but not for unfair practices.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, appointed the plaintiff as the representative, created a sub-class for consumer-users, and certified five common issues.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation by a public issuer and its directors and officers in continuous disclosure documents.

They also requested approval to discontinue common law negligent misrepresentation and oppression remedy claims in favour of the statutory cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiffs met the statutory leave test by demonstrating good faith and a reasonable possibility of success at trial.

It further concluded that discontinuance of the common law and oppression claims would not prejudice class members because the statutory claim avoided reliance issues and certification difficulties.

The action was certified as a class proceeding, with identifiable class members, common issues, and a preferable procedure established.

Nunavut Iron Ore Acquisition Inc. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order cease trading the shareholder rights plan of Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.

Nunavut had made an unsolicited takeover bid for Baffinland, which was followed by a higher competing offer from ArcelorMittal supported by the Baffinland board.

The Commission found that the rights plan had served its purpose by facilitating an auction and generating a competing bid.

Maintaining the rights plan would only serve to eliminate the timing advantage of Nunavut's first-in-time offer and force an extension, potentially depriving shareholders of a revised offer.

The Commission concluded it was in the public interest to cease trade the rights plan immediately, allowing shareholders to decide between the competing offers.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider a settlement agreement between Staff and Research In Motion Limited (RIM) and several of its directors and officers regarding the improper backdating and repricing of stock options over a ten-year period.

The misconduct resulted in an undisclosed benefit of approximately $66 million and misleading public disclosure.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest.

The settlement included substantial financial contributions to RIM, administrative penalties totaling $8 million, costs of $1.05 million, reprimands, and various prohibitions and educational requirements for the individual respondents.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered a proposed plan of arrangement for a leveraged buyout of BCE Inc. that would add substantial debt to Bell Canada, reducing the trading value of its debentures.

The debentureholders opposed the arrangement, claiming oppression under s. 241 of the CBCA and arguing the arrangement was not fair and reasonable under s. 192.

The Court held that the directors' fiduciary duty is owed to the corporation, not to specific stakeholders, though directors may consider stakeholder interests.

The debentureholders failed to establish a reasonable expectation that their investment grade rating would be maintained.

The Court affirmed the trial judge's approval of the arrangement, finding it had a valid business purpose and resolved objections in a fair and balanced way.

The appellant appealed the order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the analysis and conclusions of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The applicants sought to vary management cease trade orders (MCTOs) under section 144 of the Securities Act to permit trading in connection with a proposed going private transaction by Hollinger Inc. The Commission found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that varying the MCTOs would not be prejudicial to the public interest.

The Commission cited concerns regarding the lack of current audited financial statements, the adequacy of the independent valuation, the potential conflicts of interest in the proposed litigation trust, and evidence of undue influence exerted by related parties on the independent committee and valuator.

The applications were denied.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their proposed class action statements of claim for oppression against the respondents.

The claims alleged that a recapitalization plan was oppressive to minority shareholders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the prospectus explicitly warned of the financial risks, the recapitalization plan benefited the company by preventing immediate collapse, and the appellants failed to plead any specific loss or damage.