Antonio Di Domenico

The moving parties, comprising various social media companies including Meta, Snap, and TikTok entities, brought motions for leave to appeal the substantive and costs orders of Leiper J. The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal without costs and directed the parties to provide an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The plaintiff, Toronto District School Board, brought an action in negligence and public nuisance against several major social media corporations, alleging that their products were intentionally designed to be addictive to children and caused widespread mental health and behavioral issues among students.

The Board claimed it suffered direct economic damages in responding to these student harms, including increased costs for mental health services, security, and staff training.

The defendant corporations brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, allowing the Board's novel claims in negligence and public nuisance to proceed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to one responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,000.

No costs were awarded to the other responding parties as no factum was filed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding an alleged emissions defeat device in certain diesel-engine vehicles.

The defendants had already initiated a recall to repair the defeat device at no cost, rendering the vehicles compliant with emissions regulations.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of compensable harm, such as paying a premium price or experiencing reduced fuel economy post-repair.

Without compensable harm, the court held that a class action would not advance the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification, or judicial economy.

Apotex sought damages for breach of contract and negligence against MDS for deficient bioequivalence studies that the FDA ultimately rejected.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The trial judge found the action was timely, determining that discovery occurred on December 11, 2006, when Apotex learned the FDA would not accept the MDS studies.

The Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion but on different grounds, finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until December 11, 2006, based on when Apotex knew that the breach had caused injury, loss or damage.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on breach of contract, mitigation, and damages.

Apotex brought an action against MDS (now Nordion) for breach of contract and negligence arising from bioequivalence studies conducted by MDS for Apotex's generic drug applications to the FDA.

The FDA refused to accept the studies due to MDS's failure to comply with U.S. regulatory requirements, forcing Apotex to repeat or certify the studies and delaying the launch of its drugs.

The court found MDS breached the Master Laboratory Services Agreement and its duty of care.

The court rejected MDS's defences regarding standing and the limitation period.

Apotex was awarded over $11.3 million in damages for the costs of repeating/certifying the studies and for lost profits due to the delayed market entry.

The plaintiffs were successful on a bifurcated motion for leave to appeal a class action certification order.

They sought costs of $65,000 on a partial indemnity basis for the portion of the motion dealing with the remaining issues.

The defendant opposed an award of costs at this time, arguing for a single costs award at the end of the appeal.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, finding that the issues were discrete and an attendance-by-attendance award was appropriate.

The court fixed costs at $55,000, payable forthwith, after adjusting for duplication of time by senior counsel.

The appellant applied for a new liquor sales licence for TD Place, a sports stadium.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving an objection from a local resident concerned about public disturbances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no causal connection between alcohol served at the premises and past rowdiness, and was satisfied with the appellant's comprehensive security and staff training plans.

The Tribunal concluded the objector failed to prove the licence was contrary to the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The defendant, United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed appeal challenged the certification of common issues relating to whether the defendant's brokerage fee practices constituted false or unconscionable representations, forced renegotiation of contracts, or breached requirements for future performance agreements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court found no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's certification order.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following dismissal of an application seeking enforcement of letters rogatory issued by a United States court in foreign patent litigation, the court addressed costs.

The successful respondent sought full indemnity costs exceeding $72,000, arguing that non‑parties resisting letters rogatory should be fully indemnified.

The court held that while full indemnity may be appropriate in some cases involving non‑party respondents, the scale and quantum of costs remain discretionary and must satisfy the overriding principle of reasonableness and proportionality under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the hours and number of legal professionals involved excessive given the limited record and straightforward issues.

Costs were therefore fixed at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

The landlord defendants appealed an order certifying a class action against them founded on common law negligence following a series of devastating propane explosions.

The appellants argued that as landlords, they owed no duty of care to third parties in the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the landlords had no obligation to act, given allegations that they knew of the highly dangerous propane business and the foreseeable risk of catastrophic harm to nearby residents.

The applicants sought an order enforcing letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel documentary and oral discovery from the respondent, an Ontario non-party, for use in US patent litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the request was overly broad and the evidence insufficient.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate that the requested evidence was relevant by Ontario standards, necessary for trial, not otherwise obtainable, identified with reasonable specificity, and not unduly burdensome.

The plaintiffs and four defendants (the Teskey defendants) sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the certification of a class action arising from a propane facility explosion.

The motions judge had refused to certify claims against the Teskey defendants in strict liability, nuisance, and under the Occupiers' Liability Act, but certified a claim in common law negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the refusal to certify those claims against the landlords.

The Court granted the Teskey defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification of the common law negligence claim, finding good reason to doubt whether the landlords owed a duty of care to neighbours based on the lease provisions.

In a Commercial List proceeding involving allegations of fraudulent client statements and failure to supervise a securities representative, the court addressed repeated failures by the parties to comply with procedural timetables and case management orders.

The action had been scheduled twice for summary judgment but the parties failed to complete materials and examinations.

The court previously directed the matter to proceed as a hybrid trial with affidavit evidence-in-chief and cross‑examination at trial, but a self‑represented defendant failed to comply with orders to deliver evidence and served a deficient statement of defence consisting of a blanket denial.

At a further case management attendance, the court declined to make additional procedural orders and instead required the parties to choose between continuing under the hybrid trial timetable on the Commercial List or pursuing conventional discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure, in which case the matter would be transferred to the Civil List.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to change the designation of the appellants from two individuals to a ratepayers' association.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in its interpretation of its rules regarding minor errors and reviews.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the OMB's conclusion that the individuals who signed the appeal forms were the proper parties.

The Court also addressed a potential conflict of interest involving the moving party's counsel and adjourned the issue of costs.

An employer in a farming operation was convicted of failing to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

An employee fell and broke her leg while descending from a transport storage trailer using portable steps that left a 24-inch gap between the top step and the trailer floor.

The employer appealed, arguing that the concept of "adequacy" did not apply to farming operations and that the steps had been used safely for months without incident.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding that the employer failed to provide adequate access and egress to the trailer and that the gap between the steps and trailer floor was self-evidently unsafe.