Caroline Zayid

This certified class action concerns economic losses allegedly sustained by corn growers due to the premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed (Agrisure/Viptera/Duracade) by the defendants, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG.

The plaintiff alleges that Syngenta released the product into the North American market without obtaining import approval from China, leading to rejected shipments, a glut in domestic supply, and depressed corn prices.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care to the class.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature due to the absence of documentary and oral discovery, and concluding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the existence of a duty of care, particularly concerning industry warnings to Syngenta and the interconnectedness of the corn market.

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 applicant, a registered clinical psychologist, sought judicial review of a decision by the College of Psychologists of Ontario's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering him to complete a specified continuing education or remedial program (SCERP) regarding professionalism in public statements.

The ICRC's order followed an investigation into the applicant's social media posts and public statements, which the committee found posed moderate risks of harm to the public and the profession.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the ICRC reasonably balanced the applicant's Charter right to freedom of expression with the College's statutory mandate to regulate the profession in the public interest, in accordance with the Doré framework.

The Court also held that the ICRC's decision met the Vavilov standard of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.

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 Ontario College of Teachers appealed a decision of its Discipline Committee, which had rejected a joint submission on penalty for a member who pleaded guilty to professional misconduct involving inappropriate comments.

The majority of the Discipline Committee had substituted its own penalty, finding the proposed three-month suspension unduly harsh.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee erred in law by applying a 'fitness test' rather than the stringent 'public interest test' established in Anthony-Cook.

The Court found that the joint submission did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered that the jointly proposed penalty be imposed.

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.

The Member, a former Director of Education, was found guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in repeated plagiarism over a 10-year period in various publications, speeches, and blog posts.

At the penalty hearing, the College sought revocation of the Member's certificate, while the Member expressed remorse and noted his completion of an ethics course.

The Discipline Committee ordered a 24-month suspension, finding that revocation was not necessary given the Member's remorse and steps toward rehabilitation.

The Committee also imposed a maximum fine of $5,000 to denounce the conduct and deter others, and ordered the Member to pay $10,000 in costs due to his failure to cooperate fully during the hearing process.

The Member, a former Director of Education, faced allegations of professional misconduct for plagiarizing material in opinion pieces, speeches, blog posts, and books published between 2002 and 2013.

The Member pled guilty to the allegations but sought to provide context, claiming he received writing assistance due to his busy schedule.

The Discipline Committee found the Member's evidence unpersuasive and concluded that he engaged in professional misconduct.

The Committee held that plagiarism is notorious conduct that does not require expert evidence to establish a breach of professional standards.

The Member was found to have failed to maintain the standards of the profession, issued false or misleading documents, failed to comply with the Education Act, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming conduct.

The member brought a motion to indefinitely adjourn his discipline hearing, citing the passing of his ex-wife 15 months prior.

The College consented to adjourning the immediate hearing date but opposed an indefinite adjournment.

The Discipline Committee denied the request for an indefinite adjournment, noting the lack of sufficient reasons for further delay, the fact that two previous adjournments had already been granted, and the public interest in concluding a matter involving conduct that occurred 8 to 19 years ago.

The hearing was adjourned to a previously scheduled continuation date.

The member requested an indefinite adjournment of his discipline hearing due to a death in his family.

The College consented to an adjournment but opposed it being indefinite, noting the age of the allegations and previous delays.

The Discipline Committee granted the adjournment on compassionate grounds but refused to make it indefinite, citing the public interest in concluding the matter.

The Committee set four potential continuation dates and directed the member to select two, declining the College's request to make the dates peremptory given the member was self-represented.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member.

The parties agreed to the withdrawal in exchange for the Member's undertaking to resign immediately, never seek reinstatement, and never teach again in Ontario.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal protected the public interest and provided finality, particularly given the Member's serious health issues which had indefinitely delayed the hearing.

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.

The Member, a teacher, pled guilty to professional misconduct for surreptitiously recording female students' breasts and cleavage for a sexual purpose over a two-year period.

The Member had previously been convicted of voyeurism by the Supreme Court of Canada for this conduct.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a written reprimand and the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against CIBC Mortgages Inc. regarding the calculation of prepayment penalties on residential mortgages.

The plaintiffs alleged that the prepayment penalty clauses were illegal, contrary to public policy, unconscionable, and void for uncertainty, and that the defendant miscalculated the penalties by failing to apply a present value discount and using a shortened amortization period.

The court found that the pleadings did not disclose causes of action for illegality, unconscionability (as pleaded), uncertainty, or failure to apply a present value discount.

However, the court found a valid cause of action regarding the use of a shortened amortization period and certified the action as a class proceeding on that narrowed basis.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an interim stay and an adjournment of a scheduled certification motion in Ontario.

The purpose was to pursue certification of a national class in a parallel class proceeding in British Columbia, citing the death of lead counsel in BC and anticipated legislative changes allowing opt-out national classes there.

The court denied the motion, finding the request was a late-stage tactical shift amounting to forum shopping, inefficient, and unfair to the defendant and class members, especially given the Ontario action's advanced stage and prior agreements on scheduling.

Pietro Castrillo brought a motion for leave to discontinue a proposed class proceeding against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and for an order dismissing his action, which had been settled for $90,000 to cover legal expenses.

The class action challenged WSIB's interpretation of Policy 18-05-05 regarding Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefit reductions for pre-existing conditions.

Following litigation, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal, the WSIB clarified its policy and initiated a review of past cases, effectively achieving the class action's primary objective.

The court approved the discontinuance, finding it appropriate given the WSIB's policy changes and the risks of continued litigation, and ordered the WSIB to pay $90,000 to Castrillo's counsel for legal costs incurred for the benefit of the proposed class.

The appellant, a former Director of Education, appealed a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for plagiarism and revoking his certificate.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Committee refused his request for a medical adjournment and proceeded in his absence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Committee failed to consider the totality of the medical evidence regarding the appellant's major depressive disorder and unfairly relied on undisclosed internet search results about his employment.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The Member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct after being convicted of assault in relation to a domestic incident.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a member.

The Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, ordering a reprimand and the completion of a course on professional boundary issues.

The plaintiffs in a proposed product liability class action concerning defective cardiac defibrillators moved for approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Bentham IMF Capital Inc. The proposed agreement featured a novel hybrid retainer and a contingency fee structure heavily favouring the funder.

The court found that while third-party funding was necessary for access to justice, the proposed agreement was potentially champertous due to the uncapped and disproportionate reward to the funder, and it improperly interfered with the plaintiffs' litigation autonomy.

The court conditionally approved the agreement, subject to the parties amending it to make the funder's contingency fee and any termination of the agreement subject to court approval, and removing clauses that interfered with the lawyer-client relationship.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a retired member, Christopher Michael Spence, alleging professional misconduct for plagiarizing material in newspaper articles, blog entries, books, and a speech over an 11-year period.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including failing to maintain the standards of the profession, issuing documents containing misleading statements, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration.