28 November 2017By Shakaira John
Undisclosed fees charged by financial institutions and other perceived “deep pocket” organizations have attracted class actions across Canada and the U.S. throughout the past few years. Continuing this trend, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a decision in Finkel v. Coast Capital Savings Credit Union upholding the certification of another class action for undisclosed fees.
20 November 2017By Khrystina McMillan
and Shakaira John
According to this year’s Annual Report by the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”), the new whistleblower program has enjoyed some success since its inception last year. In order to maintain this momentum, the OSC has prioritized raising awareness of the program and whistleblower protections in particular in the coming year. However, not everyone thinks the whistleblower protections are as good as they sound.
13 November 2017By Uri Snir
On October 31, 2017, the Ontario Securities Commission (the “OSC”) adopted the Ontario Securities Commission Rules of Procedure and Forms (the “Rules”) and the Practice Guideline (the “Guideline”).
6 November 2017By Morgan Westgate
In our October 16, 2017 blog post, we summarized a decision by Justice Epstein of the Ontario Court of Appeal (in chambers), in Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, wherein the Court of Appeal ordered a group of Ecuadorian villagers to pay nearly $1 million into court as security for costs in their historical litigation against Chevron.
30 October 2017By Khrystina McMillan
This is the second of a two-part post on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Airia Brands Inc. v Air Canada. In last week’s post, we summarized the nature of the claim and the Court of Appeal’s framework for establishing jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants. In this week’s post, we summarize the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the real and substantial connection test for establishing jurisdiction over class proceedings. We also briefly explain the difference between the real and substantial connection test and the test for forum non conveniens.
23 October 2017By Khrystina McMillan
This is the first of a two-part post on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Airia Brands Inc. v Air Canada. This week’s post will canvass the background to the action and summarize the framework provided by by the Court of Appeal for establishing jurisdiction over absent foreign claimants.
16 October 2017By Khrystina McMillan
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ordered a group of Ecuadorian villagers to pay nearly $1 million into court as security for costs in their litigation against the oil giant Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”), in a dispute that has spanned more than fifty years and caused significant harm to the Ecuadorian community.
6 October 2017By Uri Snir
A research paper entitled “Are We Asking Too Much from Defamation Law? Reputation Systems, ADR, Industry Regulation and other Extra-Judicial possibilities for protection reputation in the internet age: Proposal for Reform” published last month takes a close look at the unique challenges posed by online defamation.
2 October 2017By Shakaira John
In a unanimous decision released September 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the common law immunity from discovery continues to apply to the Crown in proceedings in which it is not a party. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Canada (Attorney General) v Thouin, Crown officials cannot be compelled to submit to discovery in civil actions in which the Crown (or its servants) are not parties.
15 September 2017By Khrystina McMillan
In a decision released last Monday, September 18, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a decision to deny leave to proceed against individual defendants to a misrepresentation claim under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (“OSA”). In Rahimi v SouthGobi Resources Ltd., the plaintiff sought leave to pursue an action against SouthGobi Resources Ltd. (“SGR”) and five current and former SGR directors and officers for alleged misrepresentations in SGR’s financial statements between 2010 and 2012. The defendants challenged the plaintiff’s motion for leave, relying in part on the defence of reasonable investigation. Although the Rahimi decision confirms that courts will consider and evaluate defences at the leave stage, the Court of Appeal emphasized that leave will not be denied where there is a lack of a clear record in support of the defence.