Carolyn J. Horkins

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking disclosure from the respondent and a non-party family corporation to assist a retained valuator in assessing the respondent’s corporate interest and income for support purposes.

The court held that broad disclosure is appropriate where there are concerns that income from a closely held family business may be understated or manipulated.

Applying the “semblance of relevance” test and emphasizing the importance of full financial disclosure in family law, the court found the requested corporate and personal records relevant to valuation and income analysis.

The court ordered the respondent and the corporation to produce the requested documents and directed that the confidentiality agreement governing disclosure be amended to clarify that it also covered the valuator’s income analysis.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against multiple police services and government entities regarding mass arrests and detentions during the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some causes of action (like false imprisonment and battery) were properly pleaded against the Toronto Police Services Board, the claims against other defendants failed.

Crucially, the plaintiff failed to satisfy the identifiable class, common issues, and preferable procedure requirements of the Class Proceedings Act due to the highly variable individual conduct of protesters and the impermissible use of subclasses.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action regarding copyright in land surveyors' plans, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant sought approximately $496,000, while the plaintiff argued for no costs or a maximum of $80,000, citing the novel point of law and public interest involved.

The court found that while the case raised a novel point of law, it did not involve a matter of public interest.

Applying the principles for fixing costs on a certification motion, the court awarded the defendant $200,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The plaintiff surveying firm sought certification of a proposed class action alleging that the operator of Ontario’s electronic land registry system infringed surveyors’ copyright in registered plans of survey by scanning, storing, and selling digital copies through online portals.

The motion was brought under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court held that although a cause of action for copyright infringement was adequately pleaded (with the exception of allegations based on “translation” into digital formats), the plaintiff failed to satisfy the remaining certification criteria.

The proposed class definition was merits‑based and there was no evidence that two or more persons wished to pursue the claim.

The court also found that the proposed common issues were largely individualized, particularly regarding ownership of copyright and consent, and that a class proceeding would not be the preferable procedure.

Two related class proceedings alleged that employees transferred from municipal home‑care providers to Community Care Access Centres suffered pension losses when their OMERS or VON pensions were replaced with HOOPP after a government restructuring of home‑care services.

The plaintiffs advanced claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contractual undertaking against the province.

Following mediation and negotiations, the parties reached a settlement providing $6.5 million for class members, along with amounts for class counsel fees and administration.

The court reviewed the settlement under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and considered the risks of establishing liability and damages, the complexity of actuarial loss calculations, and the absence of objections from class members.

The settlement and proposed class counsel fees were found to fall within a reasonable range and to be in the best interests of the class.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and approval of class counsel fees under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class action alleged negligent design and manufacture of elevator “sheave jammer” braking devices and breach of maintenance contracts following a regulatory order requiring their replacement.

The parties reached a mediated settlement establishing a $12 million settlement fund for class members who incurred costs replacing the devices.

The court held the settlement fell within the range of reasonableness given litigation risks, including uncertainty in proving defectiveness and potential reduction of damages through betterment arguments.

The court approved the settlement, class counsel fees, and a $15,000 honorarium for one representative plaintiff, but declined compensation for the second representative plaintiff.

In a class proceeding arising from a major propane facility explosion, the plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim and certify claims against additional defendants associated with the ownership and leasing of the facility property.

The court considered whether the proposed amended pleading satisfied the s. 5(1)(a) requirement of the Class Proceedings Act by disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

Claims in strict liability and nuisance against the property-owning defendants were struck because the pleadings failed to meet the legal prerequisites and improperly characterized the alleged nuisance.

Negligence claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act were also dismissed because the alleged damages occurred off the premises and the statute only applies to persons entering the premises.

However, the court held that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a viable common law negligence claim based on the defendants’ alleged rights of control and failure to intervene in unsafe operations.

Certification against the remaining defendants proceeded solely on the basis of the common law negligence cause of action.

In a certified class proceeding arising from explosions at a propane facility, class counsel moved for an order restraining an insurer and its counsel from communicating directly with class members during the court‑approved opt‑out period.

The insurer’s counsel had sent letters stating the insurer would opt insured class members out of the class action and pursue their claims through a subrogated action.

The court held the communications were misleading, interfered with the solicitor‑client relationship between class counsel and class members, and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court reaffirmed that insureds retain control of litigation until fully indemnified for both insured and uninsured losses.

An order was made prohibiting the insurer and its counsel from communicating with affected class members without court approval or consent of class counsel during the opt‑out period.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion seeking approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The underlying action alleged that a credit card issuer charged cash advance fees and interest that could produce an effective annual interest rate exceeding the criminal interest threshold under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

After nearly nine years of litigation and mediation, the parties agreed to an $8 million settlement fund, including cy près distribution to the Law Foundation’s Access to Justice Fund and account credits for qualifying cardholders with open accounts.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, approving the settlement and class counsel fees but declining to award an honorarium to the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding against a financial institution relating to losses arising from a fraudulent investment scheme involving a tooth whitening promotion.

Earlier reasons had found that the criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied except for the requirement that the representative plaintiff adequately represent the class.

The court had concerns regarding the plaintiff’s health following a stroke and his ability to perform the role.

After further medical evidence was filed, including expert neurological evidence confirming no cognitive impairment, the court accepted that the plaintiff could adequately represent the class and that the litigation plan addressed communication with class members and management of damages.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria were met and certified the proceeding as a class action.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class action arising from an alleged investment fraud involving monies deposited into bank accounts held at the defendant bank.

Earlier reasons had found the certification criteria satisfied except for the adequacy of the litigation plan under s. 5(1)(e)(ii) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

After filing a revised litigation plan addressing communication with class members, management of damages, and procedural issues including a jury notice, the court determined the deficiencies had been remedied.

The court approved revised common issues and concluded the statutory requirements for certification were met.

The proceeding was certified as a class action and a representative plaintiff was appointed.

Following dismissal of a proposed pharmaceutical class action certification motion, the successful defendants sought $1.2 million in costs.

The plaintiffs argued that no costs should be awarded due to public interest considerations relating to individuals with mental illness or, alternatively, that costs should be limited to $75,000.

The court held that although individuals with mental illness may constitute a historically disadvantaged group, the evidentiary record did not engage the public interest considerations under s. 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Applying the principles governing certification motion costs and considering the complexity of the proceeding, the plaintiffs’ litigation conduct, and comparable awards, the court fixed fees at $475,000 and allowed most disbursements subject to a reduction in travel expenses.

Following certification of a class proceeding concerning alleged systemic abuse at a provincial institution, the court determined the appropriate costs award for the certification motion.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs, arguing that the defendant increased litigation expenses by delaying disclosure of its position and by re‑litigating issues previously rejected in similar proceedings.

The court held that while the defendant’s conduct was frustrating, it did not reach the threshold of “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous” behaviour required for full indemnity costs.

However, because the plaintiff had delivered an unaccepted offer to settle, Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure justified partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The requested amounts were found reasonable and were awarded accordingly.

A separated father sought an order that the child reside primarily with him after the mother relocated from Toronto to Sutton without prior discussion, contrary to the cooperative expectations in a joint parenting arrangement under a separation agreement.

The agreement required both parties to reside within the "GTA" but did not define that term.

Applying the mobility analysis from Gordon v. Goertz as modified in Berry v. Berry for cases involving two custodial parents, the court assessed the child’s best interests, including the existing parenting arrangement, maximizing contact with both parents, and potential disruption to the child.

Although the court criticized the mother’s failure to communicate the relocation decision, it concluded that parental conduct did not demonstrate an inability to meet the child’s needs.

Considering continuity of care and the impending transition to school, the court determined that the child’s best interests slightly favoured residing primarily with the mother in Sutton with expanded parenting time for the father.

In a certified class proceeding concerning alleged systemic abuse and mistreatment of residents at a provincial facility for individuals with developmental disabilities, the plaintiffs brought a Rule 21 motion seeking a pre‑trial determination that the defendant owed the class a duty of care and fiduciary duty.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the existence and scope of such duties required a full evidentiary record and should be determined at the common issues trial.

The court held that deciding only part of the duty analysis prior to trial would improperly fragment the inquiry and risk duplicative consideration of evidence.

Exercising case management powers under s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court directed that the motion not proceed before the common issues trial.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action arising from explosions at a propane facility in Toronto that allegedly caused personal injury, property damage, and evacuation of nearby residents.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

It held that the pleadings against certain landlord defendants failed to disclose a viable cause of action because the allegations relying on agency, single‑group enterprise, and alter‑ego theories lacked material facts capable of piercing the corporate veil.

Those pleadings were struck with leave to amend and the certification motion against those defendants was adjourned.

The proceeding was otherwise certified as a class action against the remaining defendants, with common issues approved and representative plaintiffs appointed.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Canadian citizenship oath under s. 24 of the Citizenship Act, alleging it infringed rights under ss. 2 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by compelling allegiance to the monarch.

After certification of the proposed class proceeding was denied and appeals were dismissed, the plaintiffs sought an order under s. 7 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to continue the matter as an individual proceeding.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The court held that although the litigation had progressed slowly, the delay was not intentional, contumelious, or such as to create a substantial risk that a fair trial would no longer be possible.

The motion to dismiss for delay was denied and the plaintiffs were permitted to continue the action individually seeking declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs, autistic children and their parents, commenced a proposed class proceeding alleging the provincial government and several school boards failed to provide or fund Applied Behavioural Analysis therapy and related services within Ontario’s education system, contrary to the Charter.

After earlier rulings struck most causes of action and the Court of Appeal limited the remaining claims, the plaintiffs moved to discontinue the proceeding under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing discontinuance of proposed class proceedings, focusing on whether the discontinuance would prejudice putative class members.

Finding no evidence of improper purpose, prejudice to class members, or objection from notified parties, the court approved the discontinuance on consent and without costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, the manufacturers of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel.

The plaintiffs alleged that Seroquel caused various health risks, including weight gain and diabetes, and that the defendants were negligent in their design, testing, marketing, and failure to warn, particularly regarding off-label uses.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy any of the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The statement of claim was found to be fundamentally deficient, failing to disclose a valid cause of action.

Furthermore, the court found no identifiable class, a lack of common issues capable of being assessed in common, that a class action was not the preferable procedure, and that the proposed representative plaintiffs were unsuitable.

The moving party sought certification of a class action alleging systemic physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of visually impaired students at a provincially operated residential school.

The claim alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the province’s operation and supervision of the institution over several decades.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, including claims predating 1963.

It found an identifiable class, common issues relating to systemic misconduct, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving the claims.

The proposed representative plaintiff and litigation plan were found adequate, and the action was certified as a class proceeding.