Bryan Calvin McPhadden

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement arising from a 2020 ransomware attack on Blackbaud, a cloud software provider, which resulted in the exfiltration of personal data of its customers' constituents.

Despite the data breach, no evidence of actual harm or misuse of the exfiltrated data emerged over four years.

The plaintiff sought certification for settlement purposes and approval of a cy-près settlement of $340,000, to be distributed to two academic institutions focused on internet policy and data security.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success in litigation due to the absence of provable damages and the unlikelihood of establishing claims in negligence or intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also approved an unusual notice plan, dispensing with pre-approval notice to the class due to the impracticality of identifying and notifying class members and the low value of the opt-out right.

However, the court significantly reduced class counsel's requested fees from 33.3% to approximately 17.5% of the settlement amount, citing the case's lack of objective success and to discourage the "churning of bad cases."

The applicant sought an interim injunction to preserve the respondent mother's assets pending a guardianship application, alleging the mother lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence by a new, much younger husband.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no medical evidence to support the claim of incapacity and that the issue of undue influence was premature as the mother was alive and deemed capable.

The court emphasized that a competent person has the right to make decisions deemed foolish by others.

The applicant, Jennifer Lynn James, brought a motion seeking to add Gideon Amofa as a respondent, validate service on him, and enforce a Florida temporary injunction.

The Florida injunction prohibited Gideon Amofa from contacting Carol Fern James, coming near her home or car, and froze assets held at TD Wealth in Toronto, even if jointly titled.

The court dismissed all three requests.

It found that service on Gideon Amofa was not properly effected under the Hague Service Convention, that Gideon was not a necessary party to the existing guardianship application concerning Carol's capacity, and that the Florida temporary injunction was not final or sufficiently clear for enforcement in Ontario.

The court also raised public policy concerns regarding the enforcement of an order that restricts a presumed capable person's contact with her husband and freezes her assets, especially when the relief granted exceeds what is available under Ontario law without a finding of incapacity.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages and an accounting based on reciprocal profit-sharing agreements related to wind farm projects, alleging the defendants failed to remit his share of proceeds from a $30 million sale to China Longyuan.

The defendants opposed, arguing no payment obligation was triggered and that the action was statute-barred or prejudiced by delay.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding the record incomplete for quantum determination and corporate defendant liability.

However, the court also dismissed the defendants' request to dismiss the action, ruling that the profit-sharing obligations were triggered and rejecting the limitation period and prejudice arguments.

The case was ordered to proceed to trial with specific directions for discovery and mediation, and certain material facts were deemed undisputed.

This is a privacy law class action concerning a data breach at LifeLabs.

The plaintiffs moved for court approval of a settlement agreement and class counsel fees.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the low likelihood of success at trial given recent legal developments regarding data breach claims and lack of proven damages.

Class counsel's requested fee of 25% of the settlement funds was also approved.

However, the court denied the representative plaintiffs' request for a $2,500 honorarium each, finding their contribution, while valuable, was not exceptional enough to warrant such an award.

This is a motion for certification for settlement purposes in a proposed privacy law class action concerning a data breach affecting 8.6 million customers of LifeLabs.

The parties reached a settlement agreement, and the plaintiffs sought court approval for certifying the action for settlement, approving the settlement notices (Short and Long Form), and a plan for their dissemination.

The court granted the motion, finding that all criteria for certification were met, albeit less rigorously applied in the settlement context.

The settlement involves a guaranteed fund of $4.9 million and a contingent fund of $4.9 million, with claimants receiving a minimum of $50.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover a $100,000 loan and interest from the defendants, evidenced by a missing promissory note.

The defendants disputed the loan's principal amount, interest rate, and whether Ms. Morrow was a party, also raising a limitations defence based on a 2012 email.

The court found the loan was $100,000 at 8% interest and that both defendants were liable.

The court dismissed the limitations defence, ruling the 2012 email was not a clear and unequivocal demand.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

In a proposed class action, the defendants (Watchtower-Pennsylvania and Watchtower-New York, Inc.) successfully brought a preliminary motion to strike three affidavits filed by the plaintiff's counsel.

Following this, the defendants sought costs of $15,252.12.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive, citing the involvement of senior counsel and the defendants' refusal to engage in settlement discussions.

The court found the requested costs to be reasonable and awarded the full amount to the defendants, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The solicitors, Murray Teitel, Newman, Weinstock, and Green and Spiegel, appealed an assessment officer's decision that reduced their legal accounts by $2,166.57 and denied costs for the assessment.

The original assessment concerned 21 accounts for services rendered over 24 years ago for North York Community Credit Union, with the client, Mary Serniak, having the right to assess them.

The assessment officer found that some time billed for negotiations was excessive and unnecessary, and that both parties contributed equally to the inordinate length and cost of the assessment, thus warranting no costs award.

The Superior Court dismissed the solicitors' appeal on both the reduction of accounts and the denial of assessment costs, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error by the assessment officer.

The court also awarded costs of the appeal to the client.

This endorsement from a case conference sets a schedule for a class action certification motion.

A parallel action has already been certified in British Columbia based on a tentative settlement with the Johnson & Johnson Defendants.

While the Johnson & Johnson Defendants do not intend to oppose the motion, Canderm Pharma Inc. objects to certain parts, though counsel are working towards a consent motion.

The court approved a schedule for the delivery of materials leading up to the certification motion hearing.

This decision provides supplementary reasons to correct a jurisprudential error in the interpretation of s. 96(1)(b)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The original reasons incorrectly required the trustee to prove both insolvency and fraudulent intent for non-arm's length transfers at undervalue made between one and five years prior to bankruptcy.

The correction clarifies that the statutory test is disjunctive, requiring proof of only one of these conditions.

The correction ensures the law is expressed correctly but does not alter the outcome of the original order, as the trustee had already proven both conditions.

The defendants, Bayer Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer OY, brought a motion to formally stay a proposed national class action in Ontario, initiated by Kimberley Babin, in favour of ongoing national class actions in Alberta.

The plaintiff opposed the stay, seeking to revive the Ontario action after an informal stay.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's consortium had chosen Alberta as the primary forum and should pursue the action there.

The court rejected the plaintiff's reasons for returning to Ontario, which included concerns about the pace of the Alberta action and the failure to serve foreign defendants in Alberta, characterizing such actions as forum shopping and an attempt to hedge procedural choices.

The court emphasized the importance of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and judicial comity.

The trustee in bankruptcy moved for an order requiring a director and his company to pay $159,330 to the estate under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging a transfer at undervalue while the bankrupt was insolvent.

The court found that the bankrupt made payments to the company for no actual value, that the parties were not dealing at arm's length, and that the payments were made with an intent to defraud, defeat, or delay a creditor, as evidenced by badges of fraud.

The court granted the order, requiring the director and his company to pay the specified amount to the estate.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees following a data breach at Home Depot.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success for class members.

However, the court denied honoraria for representative plaintiffs and significantly reduced the requested class counsel fees from $406,800 to $120,000, emphasizing that fees must be proportionate to the actual benefit received by the class members, which was valued at approximately $400,000.

The defendants brought a refusals motion to compel the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Tuovi, to answer questions during cross-examination on his affidavit.

The questions related to the internal workings, formation, and strategic decisions of a consortium of class counsel prosecuting multi-jurisdictional class actions against the defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the questions were irrelevant to the underlying motion to stay the Ontario action and that, even if raised in the affidavit, the court had discretion not to compel answers to irrelevant questions, particularly those delving into privileged internal communications of the consortium.

A law firm sought to replace existing carriage counsel in a proposed pharmaceutical class action on the basis of unreasonable delay in bringing a certification motion.

The court held that under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 it has supervisory jurisdiction to entertain a carriage transfer motion.

The court established a four-part test requiring proof that the delay is clearly unreasonable, that it causes actual prejudice to class members, that the explanation for the delay is inadequate, and that compelling certification within a fixed timeline would be unworkable or not in the class’s best interests.

Applying this test, the moving party failed to demonstrate unreasonable delay or prejudice, and the explanation for the delay was credible.

The motion to replace carriage counsel was therefore dismissed.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class proceeding sought court approval of a settlement and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 following a cyber‑attack on the defendants’ PlayStation Network and related online services that allegedly compromised personal information and interrupted access.

The settlement provided cash payments for unused account balances, online service benefits, and reimbursement of up to $2,500 for proven identity theft losses.

Notice of certification and settlement was distributed to millions of account holders and resulted in minimal opt-outs and no objections.

The court considered the applicable factors for settlement approval in class proceedings and concluded the agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The requested class counsel fee of $265,000 was also approved as reasonable in light of the risk and work undertaken.

Following a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding concerning pharmaceutical product liability, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining certification against one defendant but not the other.

The court considered Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary principles governing costs in class proceedings.

While the defendants argued the plaintiff’s claim should be substantially reduced due to partial success and limited certification of common issues, the court rejected most of these arguments.

However, because certification was not granted against one defendant, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed costs by approximately 20 percent.

Costs of $300,000 all-inclusive were awarded payable forthwith.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class action alleging that a prescription smoking‑cessation drug caused neuropsychiatric adverse events and that the manufacturer breached its duty to warn consumers and physicians.

The court considered the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court held that there was some basis in fact for a duty to warn claim against the Canadian manufacturer based on expert and anecdotal evidence of adverse psychiatric events.

The proposed class definition and common issues were amended to focus on specific neuropsychiatric symptoms and the adequacy of product monograph warnings between 2007 and 2010.

The proceeding was certified against the Canadian manufacturer but not against the U.S. parent company, whose involvement lacked a factual basis.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning alleged neuropsychiatric side effects of the smoking cessation drug Champix, the defendants brought a refusals motion seeking further production of medical and related records from proposed representative plaintiffs during cross‑examinations conducted for a certification motion.

The defendants argued the additional records were necessary to challenge whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and certification criteria.

The court accepted that the requested information had some relevance but held that the scope of cross‑examination on a certification motion is narrower than discovery and must comply with proportionality principles.

Given that the plaintiffs had already produced medical records and answered extensive questions, compelling further production would improperly extend the inquiry into the merits of the case and impose a disproportionate burden.

The motion to compel further answers and productions was therefore dismissed.