Cameron Pallett

The plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of Canadian cattle farmers against the Government of Canada, alleging negligence in its response to the threat of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as 'mad cow disease'.

The plaintiff claimed that Canada failed to implement a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in a timely manner and failed to prevent cattle imported from the United Kingdom from entering the animal feed chain, which led to the discovery of a BSE-infected Canadian cow in May 2003 and the subsequent closure of international borders to Canadian cattle and beef.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the claim was barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the class members had received compensation through various government financial assistance programs.

Furthermore, the court held that Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to the cattle farmers and that its policy decisions regarding the monitoring of imported cattle and the timing of the feed ban were reasonable and did not breach the standard of care.

During a class action trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing mad cow disease, the defendant sought to read into evidence discovery transcripts from the current representative plaintiff, the deceased former representative plaintiff, and other class members.

The court denied the request to read in the current representative plaintiff's evidence, applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn, as the plaintiff had already testified and the evidence did not merely fill a gap.

The court also denied leave to read in the deceased former plaintiff's evidence under Rule 31.11(6) and (7), finding the excerpts to be of limited importance and lacking cross-examination.

However, the court permitted the defendant to read in discovery evidence from other class members, as it provided helpful real-world insight into the financial impact on different cattle producers.

During a common issues trial regarding the federal government's alleged negligence in preventing the spread of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease), the plaintiff sought to admit eight foreign public records for the truth of their contents.

The defendant argued the documents should only be admitted to show the government's knowledge of them.

The court held that the documents, which included reports from the World Health Organization and the European Commission, met the criteria for the public documents exception under s. 25 of the Ontario Evidence Act and were admissible for the truth of their contents, though the court reserved judgment on the weight to be given to them.

During a common issues trial concerning the impact of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) on Canadian farmers, the plaintiff sought to admit the affidavit and cross-examination transcript of a deceased witness, Mr. Mel McCrea.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, objected on the basis of necessity, arguing that other witnesses could provide similar information.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding that Mr. McCrea's evidence met both the necessity and reliability thresholds.

The court emphasized the unique nature of Mr. McCrea's first-hand account regarding the first Canadian-born BSE-diagnosed cow and the prior cross-examination, ruling the evidence admissible.

This ruling addresses a hearsay objection raised by the defendant during a common issues trial concerning the 2003 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak.

The defendant sought to strike out several paragraphs from the affidavit of Lawrence Sears, the plaintiff's principal, arguing they contained inadmissible hearsay.

The court dismissed the objection, finding that the statements in the affidavit were based on Mr. Sears' personal knowledge, experience, and observations, and thus were not hearsay.

The judge emphasized that the evidence could be tested through cross-examination.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert reports as evidence-in-chief in a complex common issues trial concerning the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) outbreak.

The defendant objected to the hybrid trial process, arguing that expert evidence should be presented viva voce rather than through reports.

The court dismissed the defendant's objection, affirming the trial judge's discretion to admit expert reports as direct evidence in non-jury hybrid trials, consistent with prior case management orders.

The decision emphasized that this approach enhances trial efficiency and does not prejudice the opposing party's right to cross-examination.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action regarding the introduction of Mad Cow Disease into Canada brought a motion for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement.

The court applied the four-factor test for approving such agreements and found that the funding was necessary for access to justice, made a meaningful contribution, protected the defendant's interests, and did not overcompensate the funder.

The court approved the agreement and pre-approved the funder's return of up to 10 percent of any recovery.

Following a decision on a special case in favour of the plaintiff, the parties reached a consensus on costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs of $15,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements payable forthwith by Canada to the plaintiff.

The appellant, representing game farmers, sued the government in negligence after their herd certification status was downgraded for refusing to sign a registration form with broad indemnification clauses.

A previous judicial review found the clauses invalid, but the government did not reinstate the certification.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while a claim for negligent breach of statutory duty cannot succeed, a claim for negligent failure to implement a judicial decree is an operational act that may ground an action in negligence.

The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the latter claim to proceed.

The plaintiff, a commercial cattle farmer, brought a proposed class action against a cattle feed manufacturer and the federal government for economic losses resulting from the closure of foreign borders due to a case of mad cow disease (BSE).

The defendants moved to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding it was not plain and obvious that the negligent manufacture claim against the feed manufacturer or the negligent regulation claim against the government would fail.

However, the court agreed it was plain and obvious that the manufacturer owed no duty to warn farmers who did not purchase its feed.

All three appeals were dismissed.

The appellants sued two dental regulatory Colleges in negligence, misfeasance of public office, and breach of Charter rights, alleging the Colleges failed to implement adequate standards to prevent temporomandibular joint injuries during dental hygiene treatments.

The motions judge struck the claims against the Colleges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence to hold that the Colleges' statutory duty is to the public as a whole, not to individual patients, and therefore they owe no private law duty of care to the appellants.