Andrew Skodyn

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

In a certified class action regarding emissions defeat devices, the parties disagreed on the scheduling of a partial summary judgment motion by the foreign defendants.

The plaintiff sought to delay the motion until after full discoveries, while the defendants sought an early determination to avoid the burden of full production.

The case management judge ordered that the motion proceed prior to discoveries, but directed that the foreign defendants provide expansive disclosure for the motion, which would subsequently form part of the discovery record.

Following the certification of a class action regarding emission levels in BlueTEC diesel vehicles, the plaintiff sought costs of $569,882 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found that while the plaintiff was largely successful, significant time was wasted on misguided aggregate damages submissions.

Applying the Grid rates and reducing the fees and disbursements to account for the unsuccessful arguments, the court fixed costs at $225,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Mercedes-Benz entities, alleging that BlueTEC diesel vehicles contained "defeat devices" that turned off emission controls below 10 degrees Celsius, leading to excessive nitrogen oxide emissions.

The action primarily claimed economic loss due to negligent misrepresentation, alongside statutory claims under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Competition Act, and common law claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of warranties, and waiver of tort.

The court granted certification for 14 of the 17 proposed common issues, revising three and declining to certify three (negligence, breach of express/implied warranties, and aggregate damages).

The decision clarified the "some basis in fact" test for common issues, emphasizing a one-step approach focused on class-wide commonality, and reiterated that aggregate damages are for the quantum of loss, not proof of liability, requiring liability to be established first.

The applicants sought leave to appeal and appeal two commercial arbitration awards concerning Cogeco's breach of Wide Area Network (WAN) agreements.

The Arbitrator had applied damages caps and denied specific performance.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the applicants' grounds raised questions of mixed fact and law, not pure questions of law as required by the Arbitration Act.

The court also found the Arbitrator's decisions to be reasonable on the merits, upholding the application of damages caps and the denial of specific performance due to the applicants' failure to demonstrate the absence of a readily available substitute service.