|Reported Cases||Mr. Peebles' notable recent cases with his colleagues at McCarthy Tetrault LLP include:; current representation: of IMAX Corporation and of Arctic Glacier Income Fund in the ongoing defense of the first and second statutory secondary market securities class actions to reach a leave to proceed hearing in Canada; of Sony, in a major data breach class action; of Apple in a price-fixing consumer product class action; of BCE in defending a consumer class action; of a major international chemical company and of a major American airline company in anti-competition class actions; of a Canadian mining company in a securities class action; and of several major pet food retailers and of a Canadian furniture maker in consumer products class actions; striking out a proposed billion-dollar class action against a leading Canadian bank - a decision which is now the leading Canadian case on pleading foreign law: Yordanes v. BNS (2006), 78 O.R. (3d) 590, 15 B.L.R. (4th) 220, 23 C.P.C. (6th) 7 (S.C.J.); striking out an Application to commence a derivative action in the name of a leading Canadian insurance company: Chandler v. Sun Life (2006), 35 C.C.L.I. (4th) 43 (Ont.S.C.J.); striking out a Claim to create common law dissent and appraisal rights for investment trust unitholders: Silber v. CI (2006), 24 E.T.R. (3d) 211, 20 B.L.R. (4th) 134 (Ont.S.C.J.); affirmed (2007), 27 B.L.R. (4th) 171 (Ont.C.A.); successfully defending a poison pill (shareholder rights plan) at the Ontario Securities Commission in the largest take-over battle in Canadian securities history: Falconbridge Limited, Re (2006), 21 B.L.R. (4th) 321 (Ontario Securities Commission); successfully defending an Application alleging that a company had breached its duties under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario with respect to the scheduling of its Annual General Meeting: Xstrata v. Falconbridge, (2006), 20 B.L.R. (4th) 6 (Ont.S.C.J.); and; a successful application to obtain an order allowing a company to extend the time to call its Annual General Meeting, a decision defining the Canadian legal standard for that issue: In re IMAX (2007), 41 B.L.R (4th) 289 (Ont.S.C.J.).; Other significant cases argued by Mr. Peebles with his colleagues at McCarthy Tetrault LLP include:; Successfully defending a proposed securities class action against BCE Inc., in which shareholders of a BCE subsidiary alleged that they had been treated oppressively. The McCarthy Tetrault team defeated the certification motion, and had the case dismissed: Shaw v. BCE Inc.,  O.J. No. 2695 (S.C.J.). After amendment of the Claim, it was dismissed a second time: (2004), 42 B.L.R.(3d) 107 (S.C.J.); a decision which was upheld by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (2004), 49 B.L.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.). The Plaintiffs were refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada:  S.C.C.A. No. 419.; Successfully defending a proposed product liability class action against Clarica (now Sun Life), in which policyholders alleged that they had purchased policies based on vanishing premium representations. The McCarthy Tetrault team defeated the certification motion: Williams v. Mutual Life, (2001) 51 O.R. (3d) 54 (S.C.J.), and the resulting costs decision is the leading Ontario case on awarding costs in public interest litigation: (2001), 6 C.P.C. (5th) 194 (S.C.J.). The dismissal Order was upheld at the Divisional Court: (2001), 152 O.A.C. 344 (Div.Ct.), and again at the Court of Appeal for Ontario: (2003) 226 D.L.R. (4th) 112 (C.A.). The Plaintiffs were refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: (2004) 223 D.L.R. (4th) vi (S.C.C.), and the case was then dismissed.; Successfully defending an oppression class action against BCE Inc. brought by debenture holders of a BCE subsidiary. After three years of litigation, the matter was dismissed on consent without compensation to the class: K.Field Resources v. BCI et al.,  O.J. No. 3935 (S.C.J.).; Arguing successful Applications on behalf of a major Canadian mutual fund, and on behalf of a Canadian bank, for Orders to rectify significant commercial agreements with potentially detrimental tax consequences: e.g. C.I. Fees Trust v. CI Mutual Funds Inc.,  O.J. No. 4789 (S.C.J.).; Establishing the leading Ontario case on the limitations to the scope of authority of non-lawyer agents representing parties to litigation: Gagnon v. Pritchard (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 557; 17 C.P.C. (5th) 297 (S.C.J.).; Mr. Peebles has also appeared in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, with colleagues, on a variety of matters in addition to those listed above, including:; an appeal in a medical malpractice matter - Wood v. Cobourg District General Hospital,  O.J. No. 3889 (C.A.); an appeal to obtain an Order regulating the profession of engineering - Assn' of Professional Engineers of Ontario v. Hafeez,  O.J. No. 2270 (C.A.); an appeal from a contempt and imprisonment Order granted for breach of an injunction - Central Capital v. Clausi,  O.J. No. 761 (C.A.); a criminal appeal - R. v. Hay,  O.J. No. 2598 (C.A.), leave ref'd,  S.C.C.A. No. 548; an appeal of an Order to trace proceeds of wrongfully disposed of assets - Central Capital v. Clausi (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 335 (G.D.), dismissed (1994), 21 O.R. (3d) 95 (C.A.); and; a Charter case under the Occupational Health and Safety Act - R. v. Ellis-Don (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 193 (C.A.).|
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
Deemed Reliance in the U.S. Supreme Court
Eric S. Block,Andrew Matheson,Dana M. Peebles,Stephanie Sugar, July 25, 2014
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund (“Halliburton”), as issuers and investors in the U.S. (and Canada) wanted to see if the landscape for securities class actions in both countries would be...