Amanda Montgomery

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The plaintiff, Victoria Sanders, sought costs of $75,740.16 after successfully obtaining an interlocutory injunction against Canada's Choice Investments Inc. (CCI) to restrain mortgage enforcement.

CCI argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge, which is typical for interlocutory injunctions as there has been no final determination of rights.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, agreed with CCI, ordering that the costs of the motion be "in the cause" to be determined by the trial judge, citing the unique nature of interlocutory injunctions and the potential for material to be used later in the litigation.

The 78-year-old plaintiff, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant private lenders from enforcing a $500,000 high-interest mortgage registered against her home.

The plaintiff alleged the mortgage was unconscionable and procured through fraudulent misrepresentations by door-to-door salespeople.

The court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiff only needed to show a serious question to be tried, but had in fact established a strong prima facie case of both unconscionability and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court concluded the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if forced from her home, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting her interests pending trial.