Won-Jin Kim

This is a motion to discontinue a proposed class action concerning automobile airbags that had been recalled.

The action, which had not been certified, sought compensation for pure economic loss.

Due to developments in case law, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada's clarification on pure economic loss for defective products, the litigation risk increased, and the prospects for certification and substantial economic recovery diminished.

Class Counsel sought leave to discontinue the action with prejudice and without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was commenced for a proper purpose, the test for discontinuance was satisfied, and putative class members were not prejudiced, as limitation periods remained suspended.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, addressed two issues in a case conference: a proposed motion by the defendants to amend their Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, and a proposed anti-SLAPP motion.

The court granted leave to amend the pleading by consent.

However, the court declined to schedule the anti-SLAPP motion, finding it untimely given the action was nearly three years old and significant litigation steps had already occurred.

The court emphasized that anti-SLAPP motions are screening devices meant for early stages, not surrogates for summary judgment or trial, and that the evidence relied upon for timeliness was available much earlier.

The parties were directed to agree on a case management timetable to prepare for trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding a request to vary a trial costs award.

Following a successful appeal and cross-appeal by the Respondents (plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim), they sought to vary the trial costs award, arguing entitlement to a higher scale due to beating a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Appellants (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) opposed this request.

The Court declined to vary its decision, noting that the Respondents had not appealed or sought leave to appeal the trial costs, nor had they raised the issue in their notices of cross-appeal or in their submissions on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by two groups of appellants (Varma/Madra and Palihapitiya) and allowed a cross-appeal by the respondents.

The case involved corporate malfeasance, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, knowing assistance, and conspiracy related to the establishment of a competing fund (Annex Fund) and the undervalued sale of a technology company (Xtreme Labs), including the concealment of an equity interest in Hatch Labs (Tinder).

The trial judge's findings of liability for damages and disgorgement were largely upheld, and the disgorgement amount was increased on cross-appeal to serve a stronger deterrent purpose.

The court affirmed that directors of a corporate general partner can owe fiduciary duties directly to a limited partnership.

This class action concerned defective Medtronic Sprint Fidelis leads for implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of a $26 million settlement, class counsel fees, and honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting arm's-length bargaining and comprehensive investigation.

Class counsel's request for 30% contingency fees and disbursements was approved, upholding the strong presumption of validity for such agreements given the litigation's complexity and risks.

However, the request for honoraria for the representative plaintiffs was dismissed, as no exceptional circumstances or contributions beyond expected involvement were demonstrated.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement agreement concerning allegedly defective Medtronic defibrillators, approval of class counsel fees and disbursements, and honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the settlement and class counsel fees, finding the settlement fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and lack of reported injuries.

However, the request for honoraria for representative plaintiffs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of exceptional contributions beyond typical representative plaintiff duties.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on the applicable exchange rate and prejudgment interest following a judgment where defendants were found to have breached fiduciary duties and conspired to conceal assets.

The court applied the default exchange rate under s. 121(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which mandates conversion at the date of payment, rejecting the defendants' argument for an earlier transaction date.

The court found that a change in exchange rate alone does not constitute inequity to depart from the default rule.

Prejudgment interest was awarded on the damages and disgorgement amounts from the date the cause of action arose (August 15, 2012), at a rate of 1.3%, in accordance with s. 128(1) of the CJA, excluding punitive damages.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim against the respondent by way of summary judgment.

The claim arose from a management buyout of Xtreme Labs, where the appellants were directors and shareholders.

The respondent had been engaged to provide a valuation of the company, which the appellants alleged significantly undervalued the business, causing them loss.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the engagement letter excluded any duty of care owed to the appellants in their capacity as shareholders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis of the engagement letter, the evidentiary burden, or the appropriateness of summary judgment.

This is a costs endorsement addressing the allocation of costs for certification and summary judgment motions in the Superior Court and the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The plaintiffs appealed from orders of Justice Paul M. Perell denying certification and granting summary judgment.

On appeal, the plaintiffs achieved partial success: they obtained certification on some common issues but not on their negligent misrepresentation claim, and they reversed summary judgment on some claims while others remained time-barred.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the plaintiffs reflecting their overall success.

The plaintiffs moved to enforce an alleged settlement agreement with the defendant Seven Hills Group LLC, while Seven Hills brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligence claim against it.

The court found no binding settlement agreement existed, as the parties had not agreed on essential terms regarding the scope and indemnity provisions of the release.

The court granted Seven Hills' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Seven Hills owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, as its engagement letter with Xtreme Labs expressly limited its duties and prohibited reliance by third parties like the plaintiffs for the purpose of a management buyout.

The action against Seven Hills was dismissed, and costs were awarded to Seven Hills.

This appeal concerns a proposed $2.5 billion class action involving more than 230,000 universal life insurance policies sold by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company between 1985 and 1998.

The plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation in the sale of policies and breach of contractual duties relating to premiums and fees.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion for misrepresentation claims and initially declined to certify breach of contract claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, certifying the breach of contract common issues and allowing the plaintiffs to pursue individual misrepresentation claims.

The court found the motions judge erred in principle by failing to conduct individualized and contextual analyses of the limitation period defences and by improperly deciding the merits of the breach of contract claims at the certification stage.

The defendants Chamath Palihapitiya and El Investco 1 Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence for their claims, particularly conspiracy.

The plaintiffs opposed, asserting that the conspiracy claims against the moving parties could not be severed from claims against other defendants not party to the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting summary judgment for a subset of defendants risked inefficiencies, conflicting findings, and multiple appeals, especially given the proximity of the trial and the intertwined factual matrix.

This appeal concerns whether a proposed securities class action asserting a statutory cause of action for misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act was time-barred by the three-year limitation period in section 138.14.

The appellant commenced a class action in May 2009 but did not bring a motion for leave to proceed with the statutory claim within the limitation period.

The motion judge refused to grant leave nunc pro tunc (retroactively), finding that the appellant failed to meet the test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in principle in the exercise of discretion to deny nunc pro tunc relief.

The plaintiffs, Wendell and Linda Allen, brought a motion for court approval of a settlement in a certified class action against The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ("Manulife").

The class action alleged Manulife failed to provide proper adjustment notices for TermPlus life insurance policies, leading to insufficient premiums and negative accumulation amounts for policyholders.

Manulife investigated, acknowledged errors, and sought to resolve the issue.

The proposed settlement, valued between $1.59 million and $2.03 million, aimed to restore approximately 170 class members to the position they would have been in had proper notices been received, often providing 100% recovery without deductions for fees.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, granting the motion for approval.

This decision addresses costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's cross-motion and the granting of the defendants' motions in a proposed securities misrepresentation class action.

The plaintiff, St. Clair Pennyfeather, had sought a *nunc pro tunc* order to save his statutory misrepresentation claim, which was ultimately deemed statute-barred.

The Timminco Defendants sought $124,028.81 in costs, and the Photon Defendants sought $25,330.07, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments of divided success and public interest litigation, finding that the defendants were entirely successful.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) factors, the court found the defendants' requested costs reasonable, noting the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and awarded costs as requested.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, and class counsel's legal fees after eight years of litigation, including trials and appeals.

The class action arose from misrepresentations by George Brown College regarding industry designations for its International Business Management Program.

The settlement provides $2.725 million to 108 class members, covering direct costs and a portion of foregone income, and was deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

Following certification of a proposed class action concerning recalled metal-on-metal hip implants, the court determined the appropriate costs award for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs, as the successful parties on certification, sought over $700,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court found the claim grossly excessive due to over-lawyering, excessive hours, and hourly rates exceeding the applicable guideline ranges.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, guidance from appellate jurisprudence, and historical averages for certification motion costs awards, the court significantly reduced the claim.

The court emphasized transparency and predictability in costs awards and fixed costs at $175,000 all-inclusive payable forthwith.

Institutional investors sought an adjournment of a motion to sanction a restructuring plan under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, arguing that provisions in the proposed plan concerning settlements and releases for third party defendants could improperly affect their ability to pursue claims in related securities class actions.

The court reviewed the plan and concluded that approval of any specific settlement, including a proposed auditor settlement, was not before the court on the sanction motion and would require further court orders and satisfaction of multiple conditions precedent.

The court held that any potential impact on investors’ claims could be addressed in future proceedings where the specific settlements and releases would be considered.

As the objections were premature and the debtor faced time and funding constraints, the request for an adjournment was denied.