Alexander Dugan Cameron

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a proposed class action against Capital One and Amazon Web following a data breach.

The motion judge had struck the appellants' pleadings without leave to amend and dismissed their certification motion, finding the case 'doomed to fail'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the pleadings failed to disclose viable causes of action for data misuse (intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence/trust/fiduciary duty) and data breach (negligence, statutory claims).

The Court also upheld the decision to deny leave to amend the pleadings, citing repeated opportunities and the defective nature of the claims.

The appellants' motion for an extension of time to appeal costs was also dismissed.

This appeal concerns the applicability of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion to "Database Defendants" (entities that collect and store personal information) when a data breach occurs due to the alleged negligence or recklessness of the defendant, but the actual intrusion is committed by independent third-party hackers.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as defined in Jones v. Tsige, requires an act of intrusion by the defendant itself, not merely a failure to prevent intrusion by others.

The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plaintiffs' claim, which alleged Equifax's failure to protect data from hackers, did not disclose a viable cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion against Equifax.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 payable by the moving parties.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a $240 billion class action against a financial institution and a cloud storage provider following a massive data breach perpetrated by a former employee of the storage provider.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence, and negligence, arguing that the defendants misappropriated and misused the class members' personal information by retaining and aggregating it beyond its initial purpose.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim egregiously contravened the rules of pleading and failed to disclose any legally viable causes of action against the corporate defendants.

The pleading was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a $5,000,000 settlement in a class proceeding against a Children's Aid Society regarding a privacy breach where confidential client information was leaked online.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fee of approximately $1.6 million plus disbursements, applying the Smith Estate factors, and approved a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff to be paid from counsel's fees.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought unsuccessful motions for an injunction and for refusals.

The Capital One defendants sought costs of $135,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued they should be awarded costs despite losing, claiming they achieved their objective.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding their motions were ill-advised and meritless.

Costs were awarded to the Capital One defendants in the amount of $112,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

In a proposed class action regarding a data breach, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an injunction to enjoin or supervise communications from the defendants to putative class members.

The defendants intended to send a notice to 51,000 affected individuals offering free credit monitoring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to intervene as the proposed notice did not affect the integrity of the class proceedings or compromise the putative class members' rights.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification order.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is available against collectors and custodians of private information when that information is improperly accessed by a third party, even if the defendants allegedly acted recklessly.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $11,300, left to the discretion of the appeal panel.

Following a successful judicial review application, the applicant sought costs of $21,760.65 based on Column V of Tariff B, arguing complexity and the respondent's conduct.

The respondent argued for Column III, suggesting $6,596.40.

Considering the factors under Rule 400(3) and guided by Column III, the Federal Court awarded costs to the applicant in the all-inclusive amount of $12,900.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against Equifax arising from a massive data breach where hackers accessed the personal information of Canadian consumers.

Equifax opposed certification of several claims, arguing that it was plain and obvious they would fail because Equifax was a victim of the hack, not the perpetrator.

The court rejected Equifax's objections, finding that the law on intrusion upon seclusion, breach of provincial privacy statutes, breach of contract, and consumer protection was not settled in the context of a database defendant allegedly recklessly enabling a hacker attack.

The court certified the proceeding as a class action.

The plaintiff moved to certify a class action against a children's aid society and other defendants following a privacy breach where a confidential document containing personal information of 284 individuals was accessed and posted online.

The defendants consented to or did not oppose certification.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, including the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and that all criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied.

The motion for certification was granted.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision allowing the respondents' action for copyright infringement to proceed following a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The appellants argued the Master erred in law by only considering prejudice that accrued during the period of delay for which the respondents were at fault, and in finding no non-compensable prejudice.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master applied the correct test, properly accepted ongoing settlement discussions as a reasonable explanation for much of the delay, and correctly limited the prejudice analysis to the period of blameworthy delay.

A solicitor firm moved for a charging order under section 34(1) of the Solicitors Act to secure approximately $360,000 in outstanding fees and disbursements incurred in both trial and appeal proceedings.

The client had initiated assessment proceedings against the solicitor.

The motion judge expressed uncertainty regarding the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to grant such charging orders, particularly regarding fees incurred in the Superior Court of Justice versus those incurred on appeal.

Finding the jurisdictional question to be significant and best determined by a panel, the motion was adjourned to a full panel of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for damages based on negligence, nuisance, and the strict liability doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher.

The trial judge found that the appellant had dumped thousands of truckloads of material on his rural property, improperly constructed a swale, and obstructed a culvert, all of which caused severe flooding to the respondent's neighbouring property over more than 12 years.

The trial judge awarded general damages of $250,000 and punitive damages of $125,000, totaling $390,000.

The appellant challenged only the damages awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no palpable error in the general damages award and rejecting arguments that the punitive damages were excessive or unsupported by evidence.

Following a motion to strike where the defendant achieved partial success, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the plaintiff argued for $5,000 or no costs due to mixed success.

The court found that success was not divided, as the plaintiff's position had morphed and required further particulars.

The court awarded the defendant $8,000 in costs.

The defendant, National Bank of Canada, brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, specifically claims for intentional interference with economic relations and breach of the duty of good faith.

The court granted the motion to strike the claim for intentional interference with economic relations, but with leave to amend, finding the plaintiff failed to plead an unlawful act actionable by a third party.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the claim for breach of the duty of good faith, finding it was not plain and obvious that it could not succeed, but ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike out pleadings of conspiracy in the amended Statement of Claim.

The defendants sought an adjournment pending the outcome of leave applications to the Court of Appeal in related Divisional Court decisions, which was denied due to prior agreements between counsel.

Applying the binding Divisional Court decision in Jevco, the court held that the doctrine of merger could not be raised at the pleadings stage to strike a conspiracy claim.

The motion was dismissed.