Profil d'un avocat
Dana M. Peebles
CHAMP DE COMPÉTENCE
FACULTÉ DE DROIT
Osgoode Hall Law School
ADMISSION AU BARREAU
Cette biographie est disponible en anglais seulement.
Dana M. Peebles is past Chair of the Firm’s National Class Actions Team and is a partner in our Litigation Group in Toronto. He is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading class action lawyers.
Mr. Peebles has acted for leading Canadian and international companies in complex and challenging matters in the trial and appellate Courts in Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and in the Supreme Court of Canada. He is lead counsel in a number of class actions in which he is managing parallel cases in multiple jurisdictions across Canada, often paired with ongoing U.S. litigation. He has a particular specialty in securities and data breach litigation. In addition to his extensive corporate-commercial litigation practice, he provides ongoing strategic advice to his Canadian clients.
Mr. Peebles’ notable current and recent cases with his colleagues at McCarthy Tétrault LLP include:
- Defeating certification and a motion for leave to proceed under the Ontario Securities Act, confirming the statutory standard at the appellate level: Mask v. Silvercorp,  O.J. No. 5471 (S.C.J.), aff’d 2016 O.J. No. 4436 (C.A.);
- Representing public issuers, officers and directors, and an accounting firm, in other ongoing, significant securities class actions;
- Two recent significant decisions denying the full costs claimed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the settlements of a product liabiilty class action and a data breach class action: McCallum-Boxe v. Sony Corporation, 2015 ONSC 6896 (S.C.J.), and Lozanski v. Home Depot Inc., 2016 ONSC 5447 (S.C.J.)
- Obtaining injunctive relief for the Board of Directors of a major Canadian corporation against defamatory Internet postings;
- Obtaining an Anton Piller Order for the search and seizure of evidence of Internet streaming piracy of the creative content of a major Canadian telecommunications company;
- Representing major North American retailers in two significant data breach class actions in Canada;
- Successfully defeating a plan member appeal to the Financial Services Tribunal of Ontario: Dudumas v. Superintendent of Financial Services, 2016 ONFST 15
- Representing IMAX Corporation and 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;
- Representing an international electronics manufacturer and a Canadian furniture maker in consumer products class actions;
- Representing an international chemical company, an international electronics manufacturer, and a major American airline company in anti-trust class actions; and
- Represented an American manufacturer in a pension class action.
RANKINGS & RECOGNITION
Mr. Peebles has been recognized for his expertise and experience by a number of professional ranking organizations:
- Chambers Global 2017 for Dispute Resolution: Class Action (Defence)
- Chambers Canada 2017 for Dispute Resolution: Class Action (Defence)
- Best Lawyers In Canada 2017 for Class Action Litigation
- Benchmark Litigation Guide to Leading Litigation Firms & Attorneys:
Local Litigation Star (2016), Ontario; Litigation Star, Canada, Class Actions, General Commercial, Professional Liability, and Securities
- Lexpert Guide to Leading US/Canada Cross-Border Litigators, 2016
- Lexpert’s Annual Canadian Legal Directory 2016:
- Class Actions (Most Frequently Recommended)
- Litigation-Securities (Consistently Recommended)
- 2016 Lexpert/American Lawyer Guide to the Leading 500 Lawyers in Canada
Mr. Peebles is frequently invited to speak and write about advocacy issues:
- Co-author: “Developments in Class Actions Law: The 2014-2015 Term – Securities Litigation Comes of Age at the Supreme Court of Canada” (2017) 77 S.C.L.R. (2d) 1 (with Brandon Kain and Paul Davis) (Reproduced by permission of LexisNexis Canada Inc.)
- Speaker: Advocates’ Society Spring Symposium 2016: “Class Actions in Review - 2015”
- Author: IMAX, 10 Years of Litigation: Canadian Class Action Quarterly – April 2016
- Speaker: Osgoode Hall Law School 13th Annual National Symposium on Class Actions, April 2016
- Co-chair: Examining and Cross-Examining Experts: Winning Strategies: Advocates’ Society, April 2016
- Co-chair: Class Action Advocacy (The Advocates’ Society) – March 4, 2015;
- Speaker: Langdon Hall Securities Law Practitioners’ Conference 2015: “Securities Class Actions Litigation Update”
- Speaker: Law Society of Upper Canada: Civil Litigation 2014 “The Word from the SCC on Class Actions” (Sept. 2014)
- Moderator: McCarthy Tétrault’s 4th Annual Technology Law Innovation Summit “Cybersecurity Class Actions: A New Breed of Litigation” (May 2015)
- Speaker: The Advocates’ Society Speaker Series “Project Management: Exceeding Client Expectations” (April 2014)
- Quoted: “If US retreats on securities class actions, Canada stands ready to fill in the gaps” Legal Post, May 28, 2014
Mr. Peebles is a Director of the Advocates’ Society, the leading Canadian organization for the representation and education of advocates, and has served as Chair of the Standing Committee and Advocacy and Practice, Chair of the National Expansion Task Force and Member of the Education and Collegiality, Mentoring and Membership Committees.
Mr. Peebles is a Director of the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT RETAINERS
Other significant cases argued by Mr. Peebles with his colleagues at McCarthy Tétrault LLP include:
- Defining the precertification/leave to proceed standard for document production by Defendants: Mask v. Silvercorp (2014) 121 O.R. (3d) 705 (S.C.J.); leave to appeal denied, (2014) ONSC 4647 (Div. Ct.)
- Successfully striking all U.S. exchange purchasers from a Canadian securities class action pursuant to a U.S. Settlement: Silver v. IMAX (2013), 36 C.P.C. (7th) 254 (Ont.S.C.J.); leave to appeal denied, (2013), 117 O.R. (3d) 616 (Div. Ct.)
- 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 under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario: Xstrata v. Falconbridge, (2006), 20 B.L.R. (4th) 6 (Ont.S.C.J.);
- A successful application for 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.);
- Successfully defeating a proposed securities class action against BCE Inc., in which shareholders of a BCE subsidiary alleged that they had been treated oppressively: Shaw v. BCE (2004), 42 B.L.R.(3d) 107 (S.C.J.); a decision 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 defeating certification in 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: 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.).
- Successfully defending an oppression class action against BCE Inc. brought by debenture holders of a BCE subsidiary: 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 received his BA from Queen’s University in 1985, and his LLB from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1988.
Mr. Peebles was called to the Ontario bar in 1990. He has three lovely daughters who really only think his job is interesting because he can wear robes at work, just like the Professors at Hogwarts.
Parus sur nos blogues
Recent Developments in Securities Litigation
Areas of D & O Liability and Critical Information About Risk Management Techniques
Update on Secondary Market Class Proceedings
Une décision inattendue
La Cour suprême des États-Unis limite la portée extraterritoriale de la législation en valeurs mobilières des États-Unis : Morrison v. National Australia Bank
Les émetteurs publics canadiens et leurs dirigeants de plus en plus exposés à des poursuites
Lépine c. Société canadienne des postes : quelle est la valeur d’un avis de recours collectif?
Les recours collectifs relatifs aux valeurs mobilières se sont multipliés
Les actionnaires se voient accorder d’importants pouvoirs d’« interrogatoire préalable » dans des causes envisagées en vertu de la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières (Ontario)
Aucune distinction nette entre les actions obliques et les recours en cas d’abus