Caroline Youdan

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.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants regarding an alleged emissions defeat device in certain diesel-engine vehicles.

The defendants had already initiated a recall to repair the defeat device at no cost, rendering the vehicles compliant with emissions regulations.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence of compensable harm, such as paying a premium price or experiencing reduced fuel economy post-repair.

Without compensable harm, the court held that a class action would not advance the goals of access to justice, behaviour modification, or judicial economy.

In a certified class action regarding emissions defeat devices, the parties disagreed on the scheduling of a partial summary judgment motion by the foreign defendants.

The plaintiff sought to delay the motion until after full discoveries, while the defendants sought an early determination to avoid the burden of full production.

The case management judge ordered that the motion proceed prior to discoveries, but directed that the foreign defendants provide expansive disclosure for the motion, which would subsequently form part of the discovery record.

Following the certification of a class action regarding emission levels in BlueTEC diesel vehicles, the plaintiff sought costs of $569,882 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found that while the plaintiff was largely successful, significant time was wasted on misguided aggregate damages submissions.

Applying the Grid rates and reducing the fees and disbursements to account for the unsuccessful arguments, the court fixed costs at $225,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Mercedes-Benz entities, alleging that BlueTEC diesel vehicles contained "defeat devices" that turned off emission controls below 10 degrees Celsius, leading to excessive nitrogen oxide emissions.

The action primarily claimed economic loss due to negligent misrepresentation, alongside statutory claims under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Competition Act, and common law claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of warranties, and waiver of tort.

The court granted certification for 14 of the 17 proposed common issues, revising three and declining to certify three (negligence, breach of express/implied warranties, and aggregate damages).

The decision clarified the "some basis in fact" test for common issues, emphasizing a one-step approach focused on class-wide commonality, and reiterated that aggregate damages are for the quantum of loss, not proof of liability, requiring liability to be established first.