3 total
The court declined to make an advance ruling on the admissibility of evidence for a certification motion.
The plaintiffs, in a class action against various hockey leagues and teams, brought a motion seeking an advance ruling on the admissibility of an Independent Review Panel (IRP) Report for their certification motion.
They also requested directions for cross-examinations of the IRP members, including the issuance of interprovincial summonses.
The court dismissed the requests for advance rulings on the admissibility of evidence and the conduct of cross-examinations, finding no precedent or jurisdiction for such preliminary determinations in civil proceedings.
However, the court granted the request for an interprovincial summons certificate, which the defendants did not oppose, allowing the IRP members to be cross-examined under normal rules of procedure.
The court certified a class action regarding pelvic mesh products for settlement purposes and approved a $2.475 million settlement and contingency legal fees.
The plaintiffs sought court approval to certify a class action for settlement purposes and to approve the settlement and legal fees.
The class action, limited to specific pelvic mesh products (Avaulta, Align, Ajust), was certified for settlement.
The court approved the $2.475 million settlement after class counsel provided sufficient information demonstrating its reasonableness, addressing initial judicial concerns about the lack of detail.
Legal fees of $742,500 (30% contingency) plus disbursements and taxes were also approved, consistent with the court's principled approach to class counsel compensation.
Class action certification denied for pelvic mesh products due to lack of commonality among 19 different devices.
The plaintiffs moved for certification of a products liability class action against the defendants regarding pelvic mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.
The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while the plaintiffs satisfied the cause of action, identifiable class, and representative plaintiff criteria, they failed to establish some-basis-in-fact for the commonality and preferable procedure criteria due to the multifarious nature of the 19 different products involved.
The dismissal was made subject to an 'Alternatives Motion' to allow the plaintiffs to propose continuing the proceeding in an altered form.