Andrea Wobick

The court dismissed the defendant RNAO’s motion to strike or stay the plaintiff’s claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for duplicity with a second pending action.

The court found that the plaintiff’s claim for breach of good faith in the administration of RNAO’s Legal Assistance Program was novel but arguable, and that the law in this area remains unsettled.

The court also declined to stay or dismiss the action as an abuse of process, finding that the existence of a second, similar action did not automatically warrant such relief and that the issues could be managed through case management or consolidation.

Two related class proceedings alleged that employees transferred from municipal home‑care providers to Community Care Access Centres suffered pension losses when their OMERS or VON pensions were replaced with HOOPP after a government restructuring of home‑care services.

The plaintiffs advanced claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contractual undertaking against the province.

Following mediation and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement providing $6.5 million for class members, along with amounts for class counsel fees and administration.

The court reviewed the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and considered the risks of establishing liability and damages, the complexity of actuarial loss calculations, and the absence of objections from class members.

The settlement and proposed class counsel fees were found to fall within a reasonable range and to be in the best interests of the class.