Vigna v. Toronto Stock Exchange et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: MacFarland, Kozak and MacKenzie, JJ.
• Citation: (1998), 115 O.A.C. 393 (DC)
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Date: 16 November 1998

Vigna v. Toronto Stock Exchange (1998), 115 O.A.C. 393 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.002

In The Matter Of an action pending in the Toronto Small Claims Court, Action No. T2682/97

And In The Matter Of the Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6

Roxy Vigna (plaintiff/respondent) v. Toronto Stock Exchange and Rowland Fleming (defendants/appellants)

(Court File No.: Div. Ct. 32/98; Court File No. 97-CT-002682)

Indexed As: Vigna v. Toronto Stock Exchange et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

MacFarland, Kozak and MacKenzie, JJ.

November 27, 1998.

Summary:

Vigna began a small claims court proceed­ing against the Toronto Stock Exchange in a claim arising out of the Bre-X situation. The Toronto Stock Exchange applied to have the matter transferred to the General Division. The motions judge declined to transfer the matter absent Vigna's consent to the transfer. The Toronto Stock Exchange appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal.

Courts - Topic 7551

Provincial courts - Ontario - Small Claims Court - Jurisdiction - Transfer of action - Vigna began a small claims court proceed­ing against the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) in a claim arising out of the Bre-X situation - At issue were the duties owed by a stock exchange to investors and the procedures followed by the TSE before a stock was listed - The TSE applied to have the matter transferred to the General Divi­sion - The motions judge declined to trans­fer the matter absent Vigna's consent to the transfer - The TSE appealed - The Ontario Divisional Court transferred the matter - The procedures of the small claims court were inadequate to deal with the complex nature of the issues - Addi­tional parties would have to partici­pate, viva voce and documentary evidence would be required and expert opinion would be necessary.

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Civil Procedure (Ont.), rule 1.041 [para. 6].

Counsel:

Roxy Vigna, on his own behalf;

Terrence J. O'Sullivan, for the defen­dant/appellant, the Toronto Stock Exchange.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, on November 16, 1998, before MacFarland, Kozak and MacKenzie, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. MacFarland, J., orally delivered the judgment of the court and released the following judgment on Novem­ber 27, 1998.