Alicja Puchta

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, alleging that their glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The court analyzed the five certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

While the court struck the proposed causes of action for battery and unjust enrichment, it found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action in negligence and failure to warn.

The court approved the proposed class definition, certified several common issues including general causation and punitive damages, and concluded that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order striking their statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend, in a product liability action concerning an implanted medical device (Essure).

The Court of Appeal set aside the order, granting leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court clarified that leave to amend should only be denied in the clearest of cases and that, in product liability claims, identifying a specific manufacturing or design defect is not always required at the pleading stage to disclose a cause of action.

The plaintiff insurance brokerage moved for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant taxi management company held insurance premiums collected from its fleet members in trust for the insurer.

The court granted partial summary judgment regarding the first insurance contract (RSA Contract), finding a statutory trust arose under section 402 of the Insurance Act because the defendant acted as an agent in negotiating the insurance and received premium monies.

The court declined to grant partial summary judgment regarding the second insurance contract (FA Contract) due to factual complexities, but ordered the defendant to pay the collected premiums into court.

The applicant target company sought specific performance of a share purchase agreement after the respondent purchaser refused to close, citing the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purchaser alleged breaches of the Material Adverse Effect (MAE), ordinary course, amortization event, and access to information covenants.

The court found that while the pandemic threatened earnings, it fell within the MAE's emergency carveout and did not disproportionately affect the target.

The target's pandemic responses, including branch access changes and accounting adjustments, were within the ordinary course of business for an economic downturn.

The court ordered specific performance of the agreement.

The appellant, an investor, sought damages from specific-project corporations on the basis of knowing assistance in a breach of fiduciary duty arising from a complex multi-million dollar real estate fraud perpetrated by a married couple.

The couple convinced investors to invest in specific-project corporations to acquire and hold commercial real estate, but instead diverted the funds for personal use.

The application judge dismissed the knowing assistance claim, finding the fraudulent wife's knowledge could not be imputed to the specific-project corporations.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting judge below that the knowing assistance claim must fail.

The Court clarified that while Livent permits courts to decline to apply corporate attribution where the public interest so requires, the minimal criteria from Canadian Dredge must always first be satisfied.