Carolyn Flanagan

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The plaintiff, Toronto District School Board, brought an action in negligence and public nuisance against several major social media corporations, alleging that their products were intentionally designed to be addictive to children and caused widespread mental health and behavioral issues among students.

The Board claimed it suffered direct economic damages in responding to these student harms, including increased costs for mental health services, security, and staff training.

The defendant corporations brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, allowing the Board's novel claims in negligence and public nuisance to proceed.

This case involved two applications concerning a family business dispute.

Arif Al-Ali (father) sought declarations that Anwar Al-Ali (son) breached his duties under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property (POA) and committed corporate oppression by wrongfully transferring shares and removing the father from corporate positions in Poppa Corn Corporation.

Anwar Al-Ali (son) brought a cross-application seeking specific performance or damages related to an agreement for 50% of Poppa Corn shares in exchange for work in Romania.

The court found that the son breached his fiduciary duties under the POA and that his actions constituted corporate oppression.

The court also determined that the son was not entitled to the shares as he had already been compensated in cash for his work in Romania, and his cross-application was statute-barred.

The father's alleged oppression of the son was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs sought an order confirming personal service or permitting substituted service of their Rule 30.10 Motion Record for Production of Information on Patrick Sheridan, a non-party.

The evidence suggested Mr. Sheridan, a former executive of the corporate Defendant, was evading service.

The Defendants took no position on the relief sought.

The court validated the service effected on Mr. Sheridan at his place of business under Rule 16.02(1)(e) and Rule 16.08, finding that the material had come to his notice.

The court ordered Mr. Sheridan to pay $2,000 in costs to the Plaintiffs due to his evasion of service.

The plaintiffs brought motions for the approval of 12 settlement agreements totaling $22.6 million in various class actions alleging price-fixing in the global automotive parts industry.

The court found that the proposed settlements fell within the 'zone of reasonableness,' as they were generally 8 to 10 percent of the comparable U.S. indirect purchaser settlements.

The court also approved class counsel's request for a 25 percent contingency fee, totaling approximately $5.4 million, plus disbursements, finding the fee presumptively valid and reasonable.

The plaintiffs in 17 auto parts price-fixing class actions brought motions for approval of distribution protocols, an order compelling automakers to produce customer information, and approval of honoraria for representative plaintiffs.

The court approved the Omnibus and CVJB Distribution Protocols, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also ordered the automakers to produce the requested customer information pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and approved modest honoraria for the representative plaintiffs given their long-term commitment to the litigation.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to criminal offences arising from their conduct following the accidental death of a 16-year-old boy who was skateboarding on an unlit highway at night.

The defendants struck the victim with a pickup truck, discovered his body in the truck bed, and then transported the body to a skateboard park to stage a skateboarding accident before calling 911 with a false report.

The court imposed consecutive jail sentences emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives, while acknowledging the defendants' youth, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.