Aylin Manduric

The court approved a $30 million settlement in a class action brought by shareholders of Aphria Inc. against the company and two of its officers, alleging misrepresentations in public disclosures about major business acquisitions.

The settlement was reached on the eve of trial after extensive discovery and negotiation, with the court finding the terms fair and reasonable given the risks of trial and potential insolvency proceedings.

The court also approved class counsel fees, disbursements, a levy to the Class Proceedings Fund, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court approved a Notice Plan for a proposed settlement in a certified class action between Vecchio Longo Consulting Services Inc. and Aphria Inc. et al.

The Notice Plan, developed by class counsel and to be administered by RicePoint Administration Inc., was found to be fair, reasonable, and effective in providing adequate notice to class members regarding the settlement approval hearing and related matters.

The court confirmed that the plan met the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and ordered that the Notice Plan proceed as proposed.

The plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class action against the Province of Ontario following an inadvertent data disclosure.

An employee of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services mistakenly emailed a spreadsheet containing the names, email addresses, and identification numbers of approximately 45,000 Ontario Disability Support Program recipients to 103 clients.

The plaintiff alleged intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, breach of confidence, and publication of private facts, claiming the disclosure caused distress.

The court found that no actual harm had materialized in the six years since the incident and that the plaintiff had publicly disclosed his own status.

Consequently, the court dismissed the motion for certification.

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs, investors in a cancelled wind turbine project, brought a motion for further production and discovery against the Defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the government acted arbitrarily and in bad faith by directing the Ministry of Environment (MOE) to refuse a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for their project for political purposes.

The court noted the extensive discovery already undertaken, including voluminous document production and examinations.

Despite the Plaintiffs' suspicions of political interference, the court found no documentary or testimonial evidence to support these claims.

The motion was dismissed, with costs in the cause, as the court determined that the discovery process had yielded all available information.

The appellant, Glenn Winder, appealed a motion judge's decision that his claim for the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion against Marriott International, Inc. did not disclose a cause of action.

The lawsuit stemmed from a data breach of Marriott's Starwood hotels reservation database.

Winder argued that Marriott's collection and storage of personal information, in a manner that did not meet its representations and legal obligations regarding security, constituted an invasion of privacy, vitiating consent.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, holding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion requires an actual intrusion into private affairs, not merely a failure to safeguard information from third-party intrusion.

The court found no facts pleaded to support that Marriott itself disclosed or caused disclosure of the information, distinguishing it from a failure to protect against external hacking.