5 total
Motion to stay global class action against absent foreign claimants granted for lack of jurisdiction simpliciter.
The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging a global price-fixing conspiracy by the defendants regarding airfreight shipping services.
The defendants brought a motion to stay the action as it related to absent foreign claimants, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.
The court granted the motion, finding that the real and substantial connection test should not be applied to establish jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants, as an Ontario judgment would not be recognized abroad, offending principles of order, fairness, and comity.
Alternatively, the court held that even if jurisdiction existed, it would decline it on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Permanent market bans, $1.7M disgorgement, and administrative penalties ordered for egregious securities fraud.
The Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing following a merits decision that found the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and fraud.
The respondents raised approximately $1.7 million from investors through the sale of shares in PlusPetro Inc. and misappropriated the funds for personal use.
The Commission ordered permanent market bans against all respondents, with a limited carve-out for the individual respondents to trade in personal registered accounts once all monetary sanctions are paid.
The respondents were ordered to disgorge $1.7 million on a joint and several basis.
Administrative penalties of $500,000 and $150,000 were imposed on the individual respondents.
The respondents were also ordered to pay $309,812.56 in costs.
Class action certification upheld for land surveyors claiming copyright infringement against electronic land registry operator.
The appellant, Teranet Inc., appealed a Divisional Court decision certifying a class action brought by the respondent land surveyor for copyright infringement.
The respondent alleged that the appellant's provision of electronic copies of land surveys to the public for a fee infringed the surveyors' copyright.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court did not err in allowing the respondent to revise its class definition and common issues on appeal, as the changes were not fundamental and did not prejudice the appellant.
The Court further upheld the certification, concluding that the revised class definition was not merits-based, the common issues would significantly advance the litigation, and the respondent was a suitable representative plaintiff despite not relying on the appellant's services.
Genetic testing motion dismissed despite finding excised tissue can be personal property.
In a medical negligence action arising from a colonoscopy preceding the patient’s death from colorectal cancer, the defendant physicians sought an order under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure compelling genetic testing of preserved liver tissue to determine whether the cancer was a hereditary form potentially affecting the applicable standard of care.
The court held that excised human tissue archived by a hospital may constitute personal property capable of inspection and testing under Rule 32.01.
However, the motion was dismissed due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, including lack of evidence from the proposed testing expert, failure to specify the time, place and manner of inspection, and failure to give notice to the hospital and affected physicians.
The court concluded that although the proposed testing might be useful, the requested relief was procedurally improper and unsupported by adequate evidence.
Appeal dismissed; Crown prerogative does not shield the government from a declaration of breach of contract.
The Crown and Ontario First Nations entered into a revenue sharing agreement requiring the Crown to appoint a First Nations representative to the board of directors of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG).
When no appointment was made, First Nations sought arbitration.
The Crown and OLG moved to strike the claim, arguing the appointment was protected by Crown prerogative and non-justiciable.
The arbitration panel dismissed the motion and also allowed First Nations to withdraw its claim against OLG.
The Crown and OLG appealed both decisions.
The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown prerogative could not be used to avoid a declaration that a contract had been breached, and that OLG was not a necessary party to the arbitration.