Amanda Di Gesù Iarusso

The plaintiff brought a motion under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for approval of a settlement agreement, class counsel fees, and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged the employer failed to properly administer paperwork for statutory leaves, resulting in lower pension service for affected employees.

The court approved the $826,836 settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the risks of litigation including limitation defences and class fracturing.

The court also approved class counsel's contingency fees of $301,575.80.

However, the court denied the request for a $5,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, finding no exceptional circumstances or financial hardship to justify the payment.

The applicant sought judicial review of a joint decision by the Ontario and British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioners rejecting claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over documents related to a 2019 cyberattack.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review for privilege claims is correctness.

The Court found the Commissioners correctly determined that facts existing independently of privileged communications must be disclosed pursuant to statutory duties under the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the joint investigation breached procedural fairness, finding it was statutorily authorized and the applicant had acquiesced to the process.

The plaintiff in a securities class action brought a refusals motion seeking production of a Special Committee report, three due diligence legal opinions, and answers to questions about missing marijuana inventory.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Special Committee report and the legal opinions were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege, and that the privilege had not been waived.

The court also held that the questions regarding the missing marijuana were irrelevant and disproportionate.

This is a privacy law class action concerning a data breach at LifeLabs.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the low likelihood of success at trial given recent legal developments regarding data breach claims and lack of proven damages.

Class counsel's requested fee of 25% of the settlement funds was also approved.

However, the court denied the representative plaintiffs' request for a $2,500 honorarium each, finding their contribution, while valuable, was not exceptional enough to warrant such an award.

This is a motion for certification for settlement purposes in a proposed privacy law class action concerning a data breach affecting 8.6 million customers of LifeLabs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs sought court approval for certifying the action for settlement, approving the settlement notices (Short and Long Form), and a plan for their dissemination.

The court granted the motion, finding that all criteria for certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in the settlement context.

The settlement involves a guaranteed fund of $4.9 million and a contingent fund of $4.9 million, with claimants receiving a minimum of $50.

LifeLabs brought a motion to vary an order dismissing its request for the production of documents from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC).

LifeLabs sought internal documents related to a joint investigation by the IPC and its British Columbia counterpart into a cyber-attack, arguing they were necessary for its judicial review application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact in the motion judge's conclusion that the requested documents were protected by deliberative secrecy.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to extend the time to set down the action for trial and for a new timetable.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and relying on the presumption of prejudice.

The court applied the two-part test from Faris v Eftimovski, finding that the plaintiffs provided an adequate explanation for the delay in the context of seeking further discovery and expert reports.

The court also found that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice, as clinical records were available, discoveries had been conducted, and expert reports exchanged.

The motion was granted, and a new timetable was established.

In a medical negligence action, the plaintiff sought to call multiple expert witnesses of the same specialty to opine on the same issues.

During a trial management conference, the pretrial judge ordered the plaintiff to elect which experts would testify to avoid duplicative evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to limit expert witnesses.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction under Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to make orders streamlining expert evidence and preventing duplication, emphasizing the need for trial efficiency and early disclosure.

The appellant, David Wong, representing a class of shareholders, appealed the summary dismissal of a secondary market misrepresentation class action against Pretium Resources Inc. and its former CEO.

The claim alleged that Pretium failed to publicly disclose concerns about its Brucejack mining project's resource estimate and feasibility study, which had been conveyed by Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Strathcona's concerns were not material facts requiring disclosure because they were unsolicited, inexpert, premature, and unreliable opinions, not undisputed facts.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's alternative finding that the respondents had conducted a reasonable investigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a pensioner, brought a proposed class action alleging that the employer miscalculated the 2017 cost of living increase for pension payments, negatively affecting all subsequent years.

The plaintiff sought certification of the class proceeding and summary judgment for breach of contract, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court certified the action as a class proceeding, finding it met all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

However, on the merits, the court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, concluding that the employer's interpretation of the pension plan's rounding provisions was correct and no breach of duty occurred.

An international sale of goods dispute involving the purchase and delivery of frozen shrimp under a CIF contract.

The seller sought payment of the purchase price after the buyer refused to accept and pay for goods that could not clear Mexican customs.

The buyer argued the seller failed to provide proper import documentation and that the seller had a duty to mitigate by reselling the goods.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's judgment for the full purchase price plus prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 8%, finding that the duty to mitigate under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to actions for the price under Article 62, and that even if it did apply, the seller had taken reasonable mitigation measures given that the buyer retained title and possession of the goods.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action moved to introduce Pension Information Committee Reports from 1998 to the present as late-filed evidence, after cross-examinations had been completed.

The defendants objected but suggested that if the reports were admitted, the annual pension statements for the same years should also be admitted.

The court applied the test for late-filed evidence, finding the documents relevant, non-prejudicial as they were the defendants' own records, and reasonably omitted initially.

The court granted the motion, admitting both the reports and the annual statements in the interests of justice.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for allegedly mistreating a special needs child during a behavioural outburst at a respite centre.

The incident was captured on video by a co-worker.

The College alleged verbal, physical, psychological, and emotional abuse.

During the hearing, the Committee ruled on several evidentiary issues, refusing to admit hearsay evidence from the co-worker who recorded the video and refusing to admit expert evidence proposed by the Member.

After reviewing the video and hearing testimony, the Committee found that the College failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee accepted the Member's explanations that his actions, while perhaps not best practices, were attempts to de-escalate and manage the child's behaviour, not abuse.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for falsifying her attendance records by reporting two consecutive absence days as 'Family Care Days' in order to participate in the Boston Marathon.

The Member pled guilty to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct and accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of her Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the successful completion of a professional ethics course.