Adam H. Kanji

The decision addresses a motion by David Peter McMath and Darcy Loyie to stay their motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision dismissing their individual claims for additional damages arising from administrative segregation, pending the outcome of other test cases.

The court applies the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay and finds that while there is a serious question to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay.

The motion is dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs and a sealing order following its dismissal of the appellant's Charter challenge to a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs for both the appeal and the fresh evidence motions, citing divided success on the appeal and reasonable conduct regarding the fresh evidence motions.

Regarding the sealing order for fresh evidence, the court dismissed the appellant's request for a full sealing order, instead ordering limited redactions to the CRA final audit, consistent with a prior Superior Court order, to balance the open court principle with privacy and safety concerns, particularly given allegations of government wrongdoing.

Five bellwether individual issues trials were heard as summary judgment motions to determine whether class members who were placed in administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries were entitled to additional compensatory damages beyond their share of the aggregate damages award.

The court assessed the idiosyncratic harm suffered by each plaintiff, taking into account their pre-existing mental health conditions and other stressors.

The court awarded additional compensatory damages to three plaintiffs ($50,000, $25,000, and $75,000) who proved that their time in segregation caused specific, additional harm.

The claims of the other two plaintiffs were dismissed as they failed to prove causation.

The court declined to award punitive damages in any of the cases.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.

In a consolidated class action, Class Counsel sought partial indemnity costs for their work on a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the costs for DIIP development had been prepaid as part of prior counsel fee approvals.

The decision emphasized that DIIP creation is a necessary and collaborative aspect of class proceedings, not an event warranting additional 'success' costs, and clarified that prior judicial statements about future payments referred to costs already accounted for.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

The plaintiffs in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation brought a consent motion to vary the Distribution and Issues Protocol to address late claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the consent order, granting leave for certain class members to file late claims and setting out the process for distributing compensation to those claimants.

The defendant sought to bring a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for lack of cause of action, arguing the contract's "affiliate" definition was not met.

At a case conference, the court declined to decide the complex motion, which involved contractual interpretation and surrounding circumstances.

Instead, the parties agreed to proceed with a two-day summary trial to resolve the matter more efficiently and cost-effectively.

The applicant, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), challenged a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit and its preliminary recommendation to suspend MAC's charitable status, alleging Charter violations based on discriminatory information and Islamophobia.

The court dismissed the application on grounds of prematurity, holding that judicial intervention was inappropriate before the completion of the administrative process, which included internal appeals and further rights of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada or Federal Court of Appeal.

The applicant, a self-represented prisoner and class member in a class action regarding administrative segregation, brought a motion seeking to challenge and amend the court-approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant lacked standing to seek amendments as he had not opted out of the class action and was bound by the outcomes negotiated by representative plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's recent placement in administrative segregation occurred after the class period had closed, placing it outside the scope of the class action, and that his criticisms of the protocol were based on a misunderstanding of its revisions.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to compel the class action administrator (Epiq) to disclose contact information of "Unlawfully at Large" (UAL) claimants to law enforcement.

The class members, through their counsel, opposed this, arguing it was an improper use of class action administration powers and a violation of Charter rights, suggesting that the Criminal Code's production order process was the appropriate mechanism.

The court, in a joint decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec, denied the Attorney General's broad request.

Instead, it granted a modified order, allowing disclosure only if the Attorney General first obtains a production order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code, thereby upholding the proper legal process for obtaining such information while acknowledging the Attorney General's good faith in bringing the motion.

This is Part 7 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning multi-jurisdictional class actions (Brazeau, Reddock, Gallone).

The decision addresses a consensual motion by the parties to streamline the payment process for "Track 2, Box 1 only Claims" under the previously approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The courts approved an order confirming that payments to class members, class counsel, and the Class Proceedings Fund will be made periodically (every 75 days after a cut-off date) without requiring further motions for confirmation, thereby enhancing judicial economy and access to justice.

This is Part 6 of a joint decision concerning the ongoing administration of multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec) against the Attorney General of Canada regarding administrative segregation.

The parties brought a joint, consensual motion to amend sections 10.1 and 11.2 of the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aim to resolve issues arising from "BRG Crossover" claimants (those with placements in both Ontario and Quebec) and misallocated claimants, by allowing claimants to elect the court (Ontario or Quebec) that will review their claims, provided there is a connection to that jurisdiction.

The court approved the amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of class members and conducive to cost-effective and expeditious claim determination.

The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) brought a motion for a sealing order concerning an Administrative Fairness Letter (AFL) and its responses, central to its application alleging systemic bias and Islamophobia in a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed the sealing order, proposing a more tailored redaction approach.

The court, applying the Sherman Estate test, declined the full sealing order.

While acknowledging a serious risk to the physical safety and dignity of minors and peripherally involved MAC members due to personal information, the court found that a full sealing order was not necessary.

Instead, it ordered specific redactions of names of minors and peripherally involved members, personal contact information, and financial details, emphasizing the paramount importance of open courts for public debate on government conduct, especially concerning allegations of constitutional violations.

The parties in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation sought the courts' approval for consensual amendments to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The amendments aimed to streamline the claims process, implement an estates protocol, adjust damages calculations, and expedite the payment of aggregate damages to eligible class members.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the proposed amendments, finding them to be in the best interests of the class members and the most efficient means of adjudicating individual issues.

The appellants restructured family trusts, incorporating "Child Corporations" and subscribing for shares without actual payment, leading to a significant tax reassessment by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for taxable benefits.

They sought a declaration from the Superior Court that the shares were invalidly issued under the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) and an order for rectification of share registers, aiming to negate the tax assessment.

The Superior Court declined jurisdiction, deferring to the Tax Court of Canada, and also indicated it would not have granted the requested relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction, finding no reviewable error.

The Court emphasized that the primary dispute was between the appellants and the CRA, falling within the Tax Court's specialized expertise, and that the corporate parties did not require a binding order from the Superior Court to resolve internal corporate issues.

The defendant doctors brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce settlement documents and a pre-trial conference brief from two prior actions (a tort action and a statutory accident benefits action).

The plaintiff refused on the basis of settlement privilege.

The defendants argued that disclosure was necessary to prevent double recovery regarding a litigation loan that was claimed as damages in all three actions.

The court granted the motion, finding that the public interest in preventing overcompensation and facilitating meaningful settlement discussions in the current action outweighed the public interest in protecting the prior settlements, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Sable Offshore.

The Court of Appeal considered when the limitation period for a claim against an unidentified motorist insurer (under s. 265 of the Insurance Act) begins to run, specifically under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge and Divisional Court held that the limitation period does not begin until the insured makes an indemnification claim that the insurer fails to satisfy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a claim against the insurer is "discovered" under s. 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Limitations Act only when the insured knows or ought to know that the insurer's act or omission (failure to indemnify) caused their loss.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the plaintiff's claim against TTC Insurance was not statute-barred.

The Toronto Islands Community Trust Corporation sought declaratory relief, an injunction, and fines against Peter McLaughlin and Steven Whitfield regarding the transfer of an Island home.

McLaughlin, aged 90, adopted Whitfield, aged 58, and then purported to transfer a half-interest in his home to Whitfield, relying on an exception in the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act, 1993, which permits transfers to a "child" (including adopted child).

The Trust argued this circumvented the Act's purpose of restricting transfers.

The court, applying a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, found that given the genuine, long-standing familial relationship between McLaughlin and Whitfield, the transfer did not violate the spirit or purpose of the Act.

The court dismissed the Trust's application for declaratory relief, injunction, and fines, but awarded costs to the Trust for a previous motion and full indemnity costs to the respondents for the main application.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming the renewal of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity to make decisions about his antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity and the validity of the CTO, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's assessment of the appellant's inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of discontinuing medication.

However, the court found an error in the Community Treatment Plan (CTP) by not accounting for COVID-19 public health restrictions.

The CTP was amended to allow for flexible meeting formats (videoconference, teleconference, or in-person) at the discretion of the respondent physician, considering public health and the appellant's needs.