Byron David Shaw

The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by Ontario Place for All Inc. regarding the redevelopment of Ontario Place's West Island.

The respondents argued that the newly enacted Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 exempted the project from the Environmental Assessment Act, making the application moot or bound to fail.

The single judge of the Divisional Court declined to quash the application, finding that the issues raised significant public law concerns regarding governance and environmental protection that warranted consideration by a full panel of the Divisional Court.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a national class proceeding against major online accommodation booking platforms for alleged systemic misleading advertising practices.

The appellants sought nominal damages, punitive damages, and disgorgement under consumer protection legislation, explicitly disclaiming compensatory damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was plain and obvious these remedies were unavailable under the Consumer Protection Act without proof of individual compensatory harm.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors regarding the marketing and sale of opioids in Canada.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and one defendant, Pro Doc Limitée, moved to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted Pro Doc's jurisdiction motion, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court struck the claims against the distributor defendants without leave to amend, finding no viable cause of action.

The court found that while there were viable causes of action against the manufacturer defendants for breach of the Competition Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and failure to warn, the plaintiff's pleading was defective.

The court struck the claims against the manufacturer defendants with leave to amend to join representative plaintiffs for each defendant group and to comply with the rules of pleading.

This was a Rule 7.08 motion for court approval of a $5 million settlement for a minor, Ethan Ajayi, in a medical negligence action.

Unusually, the plaintiffs' counsel did not support the settlement terms but was instructed by the litigation guardian to seek approval.

The court approved the settlement and the associated legal fees, finding it to be in the minor's best interests given the inherent risks of litigation, particularly concerning causation and liability.

The decision also addressed the granting of a partial sealing order to protect solicitor-client privileged information, while declining the request for an in camera hearing, thereby balancing the principle of open courts with the need to preserve fair trial rights.

The plaintiff, Dr. Darryl Gebien, sought court approval for a Third-Party Funding Agreement with Omni Bridgeway Ltd. for a proposed class action against numerous pharmaceutical companies regarding the opioid crisis.

Several defendants objected to specific provisions of the agreement, including those related to amendments, assignments, attornment, costs enforcement, termination procedures, accrued costs, and confidentiality.

The court found that while the agreement generally met the requirements for approval, several of the defendants' objections, particularly concerning comprehensive attornment by Omni Bridgeway Ltd. and the broad confidentiality provisions, were "genuinely meaningful" and required resolution.

The motion for approval was adjourned to allow the parties to address these issues, with the court emphasizing that it is not its role to draft the agreement.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) brought an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing mature trees and commencing construction of a subway station on the historic Osgoode Hall site.

The LSO argued that Metrolinx's actions required municipal approval under s. 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding no serious issue to be tried because s. 33(1) does not apply to neighboring property owners or to prescribed public bodies like Metrolinx, which are governed by a separate statutory regime.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the critical public transit project to proceed.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from removing 11 trees on its property near Osgoode Hall, pending adequate engagement regarding the Ontario Line subway project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that HDI would suffer no irreparable harm as the trees were not historically unique and would be replaced, and that monetary damages would suffice for any compensation claims.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience strongly favoured Metrolinx due to the severe financial and public interest consequences of delaying the transit project.

On a certification motion in a proposed national class action concerning online travel and accommodation booking websites, the moving parties alleged misleading search result, discount, and urgency practices under the Competition Act, consumer protection statutes across Canada, and unjust enrichment.

The court held the pleaded statutory and restitutionary claims were legally deficient, including because the remedies pursued were unavailable, reliance and compensatory loss were not properly established where required, and several provincial and territorial claims were not properly pleaded.

The court also held there was no some basis in fact that two or more class members suffered compensable harm, as the alleged injury was disappointment from not choosing psychologically or economically preferable accommodation.

Aggregate damages and punitive damages were not certifiable common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The plaintiff in a proposed medical device class action brought a motion to discontinue the action against one defendant, Sanofi S.A., without prejudice and without costs.

The plaintiff had learned that Sanofi S.A. acquired the shares of another defendant after that defendant had terminated its Canadian medical device licence, and Sanofi S.A. itself never held a licence.

The court granted the motion, finding the action against Sanofi S.A. appeared baseless and discontinuance would not prejudice putative class members.

Notice to the class was not required, provided notice was placed on class counsel's webpage.

The defendants in a proposed opioid class action moved to dismiss the proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

In response, the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for a nunc pro tunc timetable order and commenced parallel proceedings in Manitoba.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the competing motions were dismissed without costs, the Manitoba proceedings would be discontinued, and the Ontario action would be deemed commenced on October 2, 2020, making it subject to the amended certification test under the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020.

The court approved the settlement and issued the consent orders.

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 plaintiffs in a proposed consumer protection and competition law class action sought court approval of a third-party funding agreement with Harbour Fund IV.

The plaintiffs, who are of modest means, required the funding to prosecute the action against several large travel booking companies.

The court applied the four-factor test for third-party funding and found the agreement was not champertous, was necessary for access to justice, and adequately protected the defendants' interests.

The motion was granted and the funding agreement was approved.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion, with the defendants' consent, to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes, approve a settlement agreement, approve the plan for disseminating notices, approve the forms of the notices, and grant a privacy and disclosure order.

The class action concerned defective implantable cardioverter or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators manufactured by the defendants, which were prone to premature battery depletion.

The court found that all criteria for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were satisfied, noting that these criteria may be applied less rigorously in a settlement context.

The motion was granted, approving the certification for settlement, the settlement agreement, and related procedural orders.