|
Malcolm Ruby is a partner in Gowlings' Toronto office and head of the Firm's National Class Action Practice Group.
Malcolm's practice focuses on class actions, securities litigation and trans-border disputes. He has also represented a regulated party in one of the leading cases before the Canadian Patented Medicines Prices Review Board.
Malcolm has defended class proceedings - many of which are national or international in scope - relating to product liability, banking, consumer protection and pensions. He has acted on behalf of the Ontario Securities Commission and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in a number of cases raising trans-border enforcement issues.
Malcolm has negotiated court-approved settlements in a number of national class actions and deals regularly with trans-border issues arising from parallel proceedings, including class actions, in Canada and the United States.  Malcolm acted for one of the parties in a class proceeding raising securities law issues (Moyes v. Fortune Financial (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 770), for the defendant bank in Tampa Hall v. CIBC (1998), 37 O.R. (3d) 150, (where class certification was refused), and for the defendant manufacturer in a class proceeding raising jurisdictional issues (Wilson v. Servier (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 191. He also acted for one of the parties before the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a leading case defining the "long arm" jurisdiction of Ontario Courts (Muscutt v. Courcelles (2002), 213 D.L.R. (4th) 57). He has dealt with representative proceedings involving foreign sovereigns in United States v. Levy et al. (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 129 (Sup. Ct.) (fraudulent telemarketing) and United States v. Ivey (1996), 139 D.L.R. (4th) 570 (C.A.) (environmental clean up). He also has acted for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in British Columbia in a number of cases involving groups of defrauded investors (see SEC v. Shull, (1999) B.C.J. No.1823, SEC v. Cosby, (2000) B.C.J. No. 626, SEC v. Ono, (2001) B.C.J. No. 2100).
Malcolm has been counsel in a number of leading cases defining sovereign immunity (see Walker v. Bank of New York et al (1993), 16 O.R. (3d) 504, USA v. Friedland, (1999), 45 O.R. (3rd) 129 (C.A.)), Ritter v. Donell [2005] A.J. No. 958 and has represented the United States Government in the Supreme Court of Canada in a case raising issues of sovereign immunity (see Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 216 D.L.R. (4th) 513).
Malcolm has also represented the All China Lawyers Association (“ACLA”) in Canadian litigation involving issues of state immunity arising in claims against Chinese government officials.
Malcolm speaks regularly and presents papers at conferences and seminars dealing with class actions and conflict of laws.
|
