Bradley M. Davis

Following the dismissal of several class actions against automobile insurers, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs, who had relied on a previous Court of Appeal decision that was subsequently reversed, sought their costs despite being unsuccessful, citing disastrous financial consequences for their contingency-fee counsel.

The successful insurers sought their costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to either side.

The court held that the Class Proceedings Act was not intended to insulate unsuccessful plaintiffs from costs, but also found that the insurers should not receive costs because the litigation constituted a test case and the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on the court's own prior jurisprudence.

The appellants, automobile insurers, appealed the dismissal of their motions to dismiss class proceedings brought by the respondent insureds.

The insureds claimed that the insurers breached statutory condition 6(7) by reducing their actual cash value payments by the policy deductible when taking title to the salvage in total loss claims.

The motion judge, bound by the Court of Appeal's previous decision in McNaughton, dismissed the insurers' motions.

A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal held that McNaughton was wrongly decided, as statutory condition 6(7) does not quantify the insurer's payment obligation but merely gives the option to acquire salvage.

The Court overruled McNaughton, allowed the appeals, and dismissed the insureds' actions.

The appellant appealed a decision holding that Ontario was neither the appropriate nor the convenient jurisdiction for his legal malpractice claim against a New York law firm.

The appellant had commenced the Ontario action after a New York court precluded him from continuing his litigation there due to his repeated failure to obey court orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that New York was the convenient forum.

The plaintiffs in a class action brought motions to quash the defendants' appeals from orders dismissing their Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions.

The plaintiffs argued the orders were interlocutory, not final.

The Court of Appeal held that the orders, which dismissed the motions on a question of law and bound the court to a specific interpretation of the Insurance Act, gave rise to res judicata and were therefore final orders.

The motions to quash were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing an agreement.

The appellants conceded there was an agreement on all essential terms.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge reasonably and properly applied the evidence relating to the territorial ambit of the restrictive covenant to resolve the one outstanding issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.