Bryan Calvin McPhadden

The defendant sought leave from the case management judge to bring a motion extending the time to serve a responding handwriting expert report, just weeks before trial.

The defendant had repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to retain an expert until after the original documents were allegedly lost.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, holding that any request to admit the late report or address spoliation must be brought de novo before the trial judge under Rule 53.08, as further case management intervention would risk treading on the trial judge's role.

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 against a religious organization regarding alleged child sexual abuse, the defendant brought a motion to strike portions of two affidavits filed by the plaintiffs for the certification motion.

The court struck paragraphs from one affidavit that referenced foreign inquiries into the organization, finding them irrelevant and prejudicial.

The court declined to strike a paragraph from the second affidavit, finding it relevant to the proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit filed in support of an upcoming summary judgment motion, arguing the statements were hearsay and failed to state the source of information and belief as required by Rule 39.01(4).

The plaintiff argued the sources were discernible from the exhibits attached to the affidavit.

The court declined to strike the statements, provided the plaintiff files a supplementary affidavit within 10 days explicitly stating the sources.

The defendants were awarded costs of $3,600 as the motion could have been avoided had the plaintiff provided the sources when requested.

The plaintiffs brought a motion on consent for an order approving the discontinuance of a proposed class action without costs.

The action alleged that the defendants breached a duty to warn about the risks of excessive bleeding associated with the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa.

Following the dismissal of the certification motion and subsequent appeals, the action remained dormant.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding no reason to refuse the request and no need to impose terms.

The defendants in a proposed privacy class action regarding a data breach brought a motion to transfer and stay four identical Small Claims Court actions.

The court held that under s. 13 of the Class Proceedings Act, the small claims should be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the certification motion, as allowing them to proceed would circumvent the opt-out provisions of the Act.

However, the court declined to transfer the actions to the Superior Court, finding such a transfer premature until the certification motion is decided.

The appellant lawyer appealed an order dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's decision.

The Assessment Officer had assessed accounts totaling $24,992.55 for legal services, ordered the appellant to refund $2,166.57 to the client, and rejected the appellant's claim for costs of $118,652.53 due to both parties causing delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of principle or fact by the appeal judge in upholding the Assessment Officer's decision.

The court emphasized the extreme lack of proportionality in conducting a 25-day hearing over a $25,000 dispute.

Three competing groups of law firms sought carriage of a proposed class action against LifeLabs following a massive data breach affecting 15 million patients.

The court evaluated the competing proposals based on factors including the experience of counsel, overall approach, and proposed fee arrangements.

Carriage was awarded to the McPhadden Group (the Carter action) because their proposal for a single national class action was preferred over parallel actions, and their proposed contingency fee arrangement was significantly more cost-effective for the class.

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.

In a proposed class action regarding institutional sexual abuse, the foreign defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike three affidavits sworn by a partner of the plaintiff's law firm.

The affidavits were filed in support of a joinder motion and in opposition to a jurisdiction motion.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the affidavits improperly contained legal argument and personal opinions, violating the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Furthermore, the court held that the manner in which the evidence was presented created a disqualifying conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct, as the lawyer arguing the motion was the source of the contentious information in the affidavits.

The affidavits were struck with leave to deliver an unadorned Affidavit of Documents.

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.

The plaintiff brought a motion to finalize the terms of a certification order for settlement purposes and to set a timetable for a settlement approval hearing.

A non-settling defendant, Canderm Pharma Inc., objected to the form of the order, identifying several clerical errors.

The court agreed that the errors should be corrected before the order was issued, despite the plaintiff's concern about maintaining parallel language with a British Columbia order.

The court finalized the terms, set the timetable, and declined to award costs to any party.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to continue an interim Mareva injunction, a Norwich Order, and certificates of pending litigation against the defendants, alleging they were victims of a multi-million dollar mortgage fraud orchestrated by their former lawyer and acquaintances to pay off the ex-husband's gambling debts.

The defendants cross-moved to vacate the orders and enforce the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud, noting their evidence was implausible and that they failed to make full and fair disclosure when obtaining the ex parte orders.

The court vacated the injunctions and orders but dismissed the defendants' motion to enforce the undertaking as to damages, finding it premature as the underlying claims of professional negligence and fraud remained to be determined at trial.