Belinda Bain

This appeal concerned proposed class actions against auto insurers for improperly deducting HST from statutory accident benefits (SABs) and against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for alleged regulatory failures.

The motion judge had dismissed claims against insurers due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, but allowed claims against FSCO to proceed.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over SAB disputes and affirming the court's jurisdiction over tort claims against the regulator.

The court also refused leave to appeal the motion judge's costs order, finding it within his discretion.

The plaintiff, a unionized employee, brought a tort action against her employer (Toronto Parking Authority) and a co-worker (Vito Ditta) for damages arising from alleged workplace sexual assault and harassment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator under section 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The court found that the essential character of the dispute concerned workplace violence and harassment, which was covered by the collective agreement and the employer's workplace policies.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's arguments regarding a Charter section 15 violation and a remedial gap, concluding that the dispute was exclusively arbitrable.

Two related class actions arising from a tuberculosis exposure incident at a hospital sought court approval of a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The litigation followed exposure notices issued to thousands of individuals after two patients were diagnosed with tuberculosis, leading to claims of negligent failure to diagnose and prevent transmission.

After extensive discovery, expert evidence, and partial summary judgment dismissing claims of uninfected class members, the remaining infected class claims were scheduled for a common issues trial.

The parties reached a $1.7 million settlement establishing a compensation scheme based on varying likelihoods of causation.

The court held the settlement fell within a reasonable range and was in the best interests of the class, and it also approved a 30% contingency fee and honorariums for the representative plaintiffs.

The municipal defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall on a city sidewalk.

The court held that under s. 42(5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 the plaintiff was required to establish gross negligence in the City's winter maintenance of the sidewalk.

Evidence showed the municipality had a winter maintenance program and sanding occurred shortly before the incident, while the plaintiff's evidence only indicated that he did not notice salt or sand.

The court further found the plaintiff failed to provide the statutory 10‑day notice of claim and did not establish a reasonable excuse or absence of prejudice to the municipality.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal.

The court awarded the respondents costs in the total amount of $60,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, to be divided $35,000 to the respondent corporation and $25,000 to the individual respondents.

The appellants were notified by public health authorities of potential exposure to tuberculosis at the respondent hospital.

Although none tested positive, they brought a class action claiming damages for psychological harm caused by the notification.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims because the appellants did not suffer a recognizable psychiatric illness.

On appeal, the appellants argued that the Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha eliminated the recognizable psychiatric illness threshold.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Mustapha did not change the law and that a recognizable psychiatric illness remains the threshold for compensable psychological injury in negligence.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of her medical negligence claim regarding the administration of the Energix B vaccine.

The trial judge found that the nurse did not breach the standard of care, as the risk of serious neurological damage was not known in 1994, and that the appellant would have consented regardless.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility, concluding that the trial judge's findings on standard of care, informed consent, and causation were unassailable.

The appeal was dismissed.