Bryan C. 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.

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.

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 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 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.

The trustee in bankruptcy sought costs following a successful decision against the respondents.

The trustee had made an offer to settle for $100,000, which remained open until the commencement of the hearing.

As the trustee beat its offer, the court applied Rule 49 and awarded the trustee partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs fixed at $15,356.99.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for certification of a class action against the manufacturers of Pradaxa, an anticoagulant drug.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their duty to warn consumers and healthcare professionals about the lack of an antidote for the drug, which could lead to excessive bleeding.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the proposed common issues actually existed or could be answered in common across the class.

The court noted that the decision to prescribe an anticoagulant and the need for a reversal agent are highly patient-specific, and there was no basis in fact to conclude that the absence of an antidote posed a common and material risk across the class.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning the anticoagulant drug Pradaxa®, the defendants sought production of additional medical records of the proposed representative plaintiffs prior to the certification motion.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing certification is a procedural step and that extensive medical disclosure was unnecessary and intrusive at the pre‑certification stage.

The court held that the scope of pre‑certification disclosure depends on the nature of the particular class action and that, in a drug‑related products liability claim alleging serious adverse effects, more detailed medical evidence was relevant to the certification criteria.

The court concluded it was apparent from the pleadings that limited records confirming ingestion of the drug were insufficient.

Production of the requested medical records was therefore ordered.