Aris Gyamfi

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement, honoraria for representative plaintiffs, and class counsel's legal fees after eight years of litigation, including trials and appeals.

The class action arose from misrepresentations by George Brown College regarding industry designations for its International Business Management Program.

The settlement provides $2.725 million to 108 class members, covering direct costs and a portion of foregone income, and was deemed fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiff brought a certification motion for a class action regarding systemic negligence.

During the hearing, the judge noted a statement in the plaintiff's factum suggesting the judge had previously stated the case was ideally suited for a class action.

Concerned about a reasonable apprehension of bias, the judge inquired about the comment.

After clarification that the comment was misreported and actually related to US class action regimes, the judge adjourned the first day to allow parties to consider a recusal motion.

Neither party wished to bring a recusal motion.

The plaintiff requested an adjournment due to lost hearing time, which the Crown did not oppose.

The hearing was adjourned.

The appellants, students in a post-graduate program, brought a class action against the respondent college for a misleading statement in its course calendar regarding the opportunity to complete industry designations.

At the damages trial, the judge awarded aggregate damages under the Consumer Protection Act but excluded the third cohort of students from the class.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reinstating the third cohort into the class, finding that reliance is not required for a Consumer Protection Act claim.

The Court dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's award of aggregate damages.

In a class proceeding concerning a college program that failed to deliver promised professional designations, the court issued an addendum addressing the residual market value of the diploma received by class members.

The court reconsidered supplementary submissions regarding whether the diploma had measurable value independent of the promised designations.

While the plaintiffs argued the diploma had little or no value and the defendant contended it retained full value, the court determined that the diploma had limited residual value based on evidence about employment outcomes, educational background of students, and survey data.

The court concluded that the residual value of the diploma was approximately 15% of the direct costs incurred by class members.

Aggregate damages were therefore fixed at 85% of the direct costs for students who completed the program.

The appellant college appealed a trial judgment finding it negligently misrepresented the benefits of its graduate international business management program in its course calendar, breaching the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a special relationship existed giving rise to a duty of care, that students are 'consumers' under the CPA, and that proof of individual reliance is not required to establish an unfair practice under the CPA.

The applicant, a 59-year-old temporary agency worker, alleged age discrimination when the respondent packaging company hired a younger temporary worker for a permanent machine operator position.

The applicant also alleged that her temporary agency failed to investigate her complaint of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the packaging company, finding it provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation that the younger worker was better qualified based on speed and accuracy.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the temporary agency, finding it was unaware of the applicant's discrimination concerns and had no duty to investigate complaints based merely on seniority.

The plaintiffs appealed a decision denying certification of a proposed class proceeding against the manufacturers of the drug Seroquel, as well as the associated costs award.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act and that the plaintiffs failed to meet the evidentiary threshold for the remaining certification criteria.

The court also found no error in principle in the costs award, noting the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $30,000.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.

The defendants sought costs relating to four motions in a proposed class action that were ultimately never argued, including motions to strike portions of the statement of claim, for a pre-certification notice, for a sealing order, and for inspection of documents referred to in the pleadings.

The plaintiffs amended their pleadings multiple times and eventually produced certain documents, resulting in the withdrawal or abandonment of the motions.

The court held that the defendants had been put to unnecessary expense due to the manner in which the plaintiffs prosecuted the action.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that the defendants were practically the successful party in respect of the abandoned or unargued motions.

Costs of $14,000 all-inclusive were awarded to the defendants, payable in any event of the certification motion.