Adriana Forest

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation.

It sets a timetable for a forthcoming motion by the Attorney General of Canada regarding the taking of evidence from certain witnesses before trial.

The court also noted Ontario's expected late delivery of expert reports, discussed the parties' differing estimates for trial length and scheduled a follow-up conference, and provided guidance on addressing concerns about trial presentation software (CaseLines).

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation, including the taking of expert evidence before trial, Canada's missed deadline for an expert report, the appointment of pre-trial and trial judges, the use of trial presentation software, and Ontario's Crown immunity defence.

The court scheduled a motion for expert evidence and provided directions for parties to prepare a trial timetable and discuss judicial assistance.

The plaintiff, Tyler Dufault, moved for court approval of a class action settlement against The Toronto-Dominion Bank and The Canada Trust Company concerning the practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits.

The proposed settlement included an all-inclusive payment of $15.9 million, direct distribution of funds to eligible class members, and non-monetary changes to the defendants' NSF fee disclosure and reversal policies.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the high take-up rate due to direct distribution and the significant non-monetary benefits.

The court also approved class counsel's fees and disbursements, third-party funder fees, and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion seeking leave to examine three expert witnesses before trial.

The parties largely resolved the motion, leaving the court to adjudicate the quantum of interim costs payable by Canada to the plaintiff (Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians) and the costs of the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in interim costs to indemnify for financial prejudice due to duplicated work and early incurred expenses from the pre-trial examinations.

The court declined to award costs for the motion itself, finding that all parties had compromised their positions and no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award from the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration against the respondents, totaling over $120 million.

The respondents opposed on grounds of improper notice and inability to present their defense, and also moved to admit fresh evidence regarding a related U.S. enforcement proceeding.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding it not sufficiently probative.

On the main application, the court found that the respondents did not receive proper notice of the arbitration proceedings and were unable to present their case, despite prior Chinese court decisions deeming service sufficient.

Consequently, the application for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award was dismissed.

The plaintiff slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store, suffering a knee dislocation.

She was taken to the hospital where she was treated by an emergency room physician and an orthopaedic surgeon.

Due to a delay in diagnosing and treating compartment syndrome and a vascular injury, the plaintiff's leg had to be amputated.

The court found that both physicians breached the standard of care by failing to conduct adequate examinations and communicate effectively, and that these breaches caused the plaintiff's injury.

The action against Wal-Mart was dismissed as any assumed breach of the standard of care did not cause the injury.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought summary judgment to dismiss a proposed class action alleging that it improperly charged a second Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) fee for a single rejected payment that was subsequently re-presented by a third-party payee (PayPal).

The plaintiff argued that the bank's standard consumer banking agreement did not disclose this second fee, constituting a breach of contract, a contravention of consumer protection law, and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the NSF provision in the agreement unambiguously applied only to payments initiated by the customer, not to re-presentments by third parties.

The bank's argument that federal "Network Rules" mandated the second fee or informed the agreement's interpretation was rejected, as these rules were not known to consumers and did not address NSF fees.

Consequently, the bank's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the class action to proceed to certification.

The defendants in a proposed class action regarding NSF fees brought a motion under s. 4.1 of the amended Class Proceedings Act to have their summary judgment motion heard before the plaintiff's certification motion.

The court interpreted the new s. 4.1, finding it creates a presumption that pre-certification motions which may dispose of or narrow the proceeding should be heard first, unless there is a good reason to hear them together.

Finding that the defendants' summary judgment motion raised genuinely arguable issues and was not a delay tactic, the court granted the sequencing motion.

The defendant, ASG Technologies Group, Inc. (ASG), brought a motion to impose a discovery plan, which the plaintiff, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife), opposed, proposing its own version.

The primary dispute concerned the relevance and proportionality of various document categories requested by each party in a software licensing dispute.

The Master largely rejected Manulife's broad requests for "misconduct documents" and "valuation documents" related to ASG's other customers and internal financial data, finding them overbroad, disproportionate, or not sufficiently supported by the pleadings.

The Master also rejected ASG's requests for documents related to Manulife's internal dealings with its own customers regarding ASG's products.

The court imposed a discovery plan with specific, narrowed categories of documents to be produced and set deadlines for document exchange and examinations for discovery.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to or refuse treatment with antipsychotic medication.

Due to the appellant's failure to perfect the appeal, the respondent requested the appointment of an amicus curiae.

The court granted the request and appointed an amicus curiae pursuant to Rule 13.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent jurisdiction.