Adam Fanaki

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The appellant appealed an order allowing the respondents to proceed to trial on all claims after a default judgment was set aside.

At the initial trial, the judge dismissed the respondents' claims for interference with contractual and economic relations but granted an injunction and damages for false and misleading advertising.

The Court of Appeal held that issue estoppel precluded the respondents from relitigating the dismissed interference claims, even though the default judgment against the appellant was set aside.

However, the Court allowed the false and misleading advertising claims to proceed to trial for both an injunction and damages.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Crown appealed from the dismissal of its appeal from an acquittal on a provincial offences charge under s. 84.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent's truck lost the dual wheels, hub and axle on one side as a single unit, but the wheels themselves did not separate from their fasteners.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the court held that s. 84.1 addresses the specific public safety concern of "flying wheels" and applies only when the wheel itself separates from the vehicle.

Because the wheel fastening mechanism did not fail and only a larger assembly detached, the acquittal was properly upheld.