Anthony Tibbs

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the antidepressant Celexa, alleging it is a teratogen that causes congenital malformations.

The plaintiffs proposed common issues regarding general causation (whether Celexa is or may be teratogenic) and duty to warn.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed common issues failed to satisfy the commonality requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, as they would not advance the litigation without individual trials for each specific congenital malformation.

The court also found that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the overwhelming number of complex individual issues.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against an endoscopy clinic and its operator following a public health notice regarding infection control lapses.

The notice advised former patients to be tested for blood-borne diseases.

The plaintiff, who tested negative, sought compensation for exposure to enhanced risk of infection, shock, trauma, and inconvenience.

The court found that the claims raised genuine common issues, including duty of care, standard of care, and foreseeability of harm.

The court also determined that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims of the 6,800 affected individuals.

The certification motion was granted.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for certification of a proposed class action, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should not be awarded because the litigation was in the public interest.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $182,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, noting that online legal research charges are not a proper disbursement.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Ottawa arising from a deadly bus accident at Westboro Station.

The proposed action was structured to plead systemic negligence in transit design and operation while avoiding claims against the city as the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as it ignored readily available compensation under the motor vehicle insurance regime and numerous individual actions had already been commenced.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the antidepressant Celexa (citalopram), alleging the drug caused congenital malformations when ingested by pregnant women and that the defendants failed to warn of this risk.

The court found that while the pleadings disclosed a cause of action and there was an identifiable class, the proposed common issue regarding the duty to warn lacked commonality because the risk of birth defects varied widely and individual causation issues would dominate.

The court concluded a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure due to the inevitability of complex individual trials, and dismissed the certification motion.

The moving parties, plaintiffs in a parallel proposed class action in Saskatchewan, sought leave to intervene in the certification motion of an Ontario class action concerning the same subject matter.

The Ontario plaintiffs opposed the intervention.

The court held that while it had inherent jurisdiction to grant standing to intervene, the moving parties failed to show they would make a useful contribution to the certification motion.

The court found the intervention would likely delay proceedings and potentially prejudice a portion of the class.

The motion for leave to intervene was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, who had opted out of a rival Alberta class action to pursue an Ontario action, brought a motion to restrain the Merchant Law Group from contacting them.

A junior associate at the Merchant Law Group had sent a letter to one of the plaintiffs, who was already represented by Kim Orr Barristers.

The court found the communication inappropriate and a breach of duties owed to the court.

Although the court declined to issue a formal injunction because no actual harm occurred, it issued a declaration and awarded $15,000 in costs against the Merchant Law Group.

The moving parties, who were granted carriage of the Ontario Volkswagen class action, brought a motion alleging that the responding law firm breached the carriage order by sending a misleading email soliciting putative Ontario class members.

The responding firm agreed to send a court-approved clarifying email and not to execute any retainer agreements received from Ontario residents.

The court awarded the moving parties $40,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the responding firm's reprehensible conduct in breaching the court order.