Catherine Beagan Flood

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiff commenced a proposed class action alleging wrongful collection of personal information through the Tim Hortons and Burger King mobile applications.

Following a national settlement agreement approved by the Superior Court of Quebec, the parties consented to the dismissal of this Ontario action.

The court dismissed the proposed class action without costs.

This certified class action concerned allegations of misleading advertising by Ford regarding fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels for 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles, claiming breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection statutes.

Both parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no contravention of the Competition Act due to Ford's compliance with federal guidelines and a lack of evidentiary support for a misleading general impression.

While provincial consumer protection laws allow for non-disclosure claims, the court found no legal obligation for Ford to provide additional disclosures (a "Second Label") beyond the EnerGuide Label and the referenced Fuel Consumption Guide, as there was no evidence that car buyers were deceived.

The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class action, was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against major producers and retailers of packaged bread, as well as their parent companies, alleging a 16-year price-fixing conspiracy.

The court certified the action against the producer and retailer defendants on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread.

However, the court refused to certify the claims against the parent companies, finding no material facts pleaded to support their involvement.

The court also refused to certify claims on behalf of 'umbrella purchasers' (those who bought fresh bread or packaged bread from non-defendants), finding no plausible methodology to prove that the price-fixing of packaged bread caused an actionable increase in the prices of those non-competing or diverse products.

The parties in a proposed class action reached a consortium agreement to seek certification of a national class in British Columbia.

A dispute arose over whether the Ontario action should be stayed permanently or conditionally.

The parties ultimately agreed to a consent order staying the action subject to further order of the court, but could not agree on costs.

The court found that both parties had credible arguments for being the successful party, as their positions were almost identical, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The appellant, TELUS Communications Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision regarding the constitutional validity of the Wireless Services Agreement Act 2013 (WSAA) and a class action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the WSAA was within provincial legislative jurisdiction and was not rendered inoperative by paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's request to stay the class action for CRTC determination, confirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's counsel sought an adjournment of a long motion brought by the defendant to dismiss a class action.

The adjournment was requested primarily due to the recent retention of outside counsel who was unavailable, among other reasons.

The court reluctantly granted the adjournment, criticizing plaintiff's counsel's conduct for causing needless delay and wasting judicial resources, but found it necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court emphasized that retaining new counsel on the eve of a hearing will not constitute exceptional circumstances for future adjournments.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded against the plaintiff's counsel.

The court awarded costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a class action.

The defendants sought $255,707.13, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs or $75,000, citing public interest and novel legal issues.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no public interest dimension as no losses were sustained and the defendant reacted responsibly to the cyber-hack.

The court also found the legal issues not novel, despite involving a cyber-attack, as similar incidents have led to numerous class actions.

Applying its established approach to costs in certification motions, the court adhered to the Grid rates for hourly fees, explicitly rejecting the defendants' argument for 60% of actual rates.

After considering a Grid-compliant outline of $176,459 and a 10% reduction for additional work attributed to the defendant, the court fixed an all-inclusive costs award of $160,000 to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

An anonymous hacker stole personal information from Casino Rama's computer system, affecting customers, employees, and suppliers.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action for negligence, breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, and other privacy torts.

The motion for certification was dismissed.

The court found that claims for breach of confidence and publicity given to private life were bound to fail.

While negligence, breach of contract, and intrusion upon seclusion were deemed viable causes of action, the common issues requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was not satisfied.

The court determined that the proposed common issues required too much individual inquiry, particularly regarding the duty and standard of care, and the varying sensitivity of stolen information.

The class definition was also found to be overbroad, specifically including unionized employees whose claims fell under exclusive labour arbitration jurisdiction.

Following the dismissal of two proposed class action certification motions and a Rule 21 motion regarding the unauthorized sale of hospital patient contact information to RESP sales representatives, the successful defendants sought costs totaling over $690,000.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, which had indemnified the plaintiffs, argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty of the legal issues and the significant public interest in the protection of health privacy.

The court agreed, finding that the case raised novel questions about commercial liability for purloined patient information and engaged important public policy issues.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

This addendum corrects an error in a previous costs decision (2018 ONSC 4862) regarding the amount of costs requested by Brewers Retail Inc. The original decision mistakenly stated Brewers Retail requested $600,000 on a partial indemnity basis, when the correct amount, based on an amended bill of costs, was $744,396.42, all inclusive, comprising fees, HST, and disbursements.

The court confirmed the costs award subject to this correction.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' proposed class action on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totalling approximately $2.3 million.

The plaintiffs and the Class Proceedings Fund argued that the costs should be reduced to $600,000 in the aggregate, asserting that the case was not complex, was in the public interest, raised novel points of law, and that a large costs award would have a chilling effect on class actions.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the litigation was primarily commercial, involved complex issues, and that the normal costs rules should apply.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs, subject to a reduction of one expert witness's fee.

The proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action arising from a cyberattack brought a motion for the production of third-party cybersecurity reports (the Mandiant Reports) prior to cross-examining the defendants' affiant on a certification motion.

The defendants opposed production, claiming privilege.

The court held that by relying on the investigation's findings regarding the size and scope of the class in their affidavit, the defendants waived privilege over those specific aspects of the reports.

Applying principles of waiver, relevance, and proportionality, the court ordered the defendants to produce only the excerpts of the reports relating to the size and scope of the class.

The defendants, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale after successfully dismissing the plaintiff's action against the Assembly for lack of jurisdiction and striking out the plaintiff's statement of claim against the Ombudsman for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court awarded the Legislative Assembly $49,983.67 and the Ombudsman $18,551.81, finding their initial claims for costs to be excessive but acknowledging the legal complexity and importance of the motions.

The plaintiff's financial circumstances were considered but not determinative in the costs award.

Two competing class actions were commenced following a cyberattack and privacy breach at Casino Rama.

The plaintiffs in the Kaplan Action and the plaintiff in the Harman Action both sought carriage of the proceeding.

The court applied the seven non-exhaustive factors for determining carriage, noting that the Kaplan Action counsel had more class action experience, a better class definition, and a more refined theory of the case.

The Harman Action counsel argued that their action would proceed faster in the Oshawa court, providing speedier access to justice.

The court rejected the speed argument as determinative on the facts and granted carriage to the Kaplan Action, staying the Harman Action.

The plaintiff, a former Ombudsman of Ontario, commenced an action against the Office of the Ombudsman and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, seeking declaratory relief and damages for wrongful dismissal and negligent misrepresentation.

The Office of the Ombudsman moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Office is a statutory position, not a legal entity capable of an employment contract with the Ombudsman.

The Legislative Assembly moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, asserting parliamentary privilege over the appointment and management of parliamentary officers.

The court granted both motions, finding that the Office of the Ombudsman is not a separate legal entity capable of employing the Ombudsman, and that the Assembly's decisions regarding the appointment and non-reappointment of a parliamentary officer are protected by parliamentary privilege, thus falling outside the court's jurisdiction.

A judgment creditor sought disclosure of a mortgage discharge statement to enforce a writ of seizure and sale against debtors' property.

The appeal addressed whether federal privacy legislation barred disclosure absent express consent.

The Court held disclosure could be ordered under the court-order exception and that implied consent arose in the enforcement context once judgment and seizure steps were completed with notice.

The Court emphasized access to justice and rejected requiring additional formalistic motions where substantively identical relief was sought.

The appeal was allowed and the mortgagee was ordered to produce the statement.

In a competition class proceeding alleging price‑fixing in the static random access memory (SRAM) industry, the plaintiff sought court approval of a national settlement reached with certain defendants and approval of interim class counsel fees.

The settlement required the settling defendants to pay $1.5 million for the benefit of settlement class members across Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec, and to provide cooperation in the ongoing litigation against remaining defendants.

The court applied established class action settlement approval principles, assessing fairness, reasonableness, and the best interests of the class.

Finding the settlement well‑investigated, negotiated at arm’s length, and beneficial to class members given the risks of continued litigation, the court approved the settlement and the requested class counsel fees.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a price‑fixing class action for settlement purposes against certain chocolate manufacturers and approval of a settlement with one defendant.

The action alleged a conspiracy to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of chocolate confectionery products in Canada, contrary to competition law.

The court considered the requirements for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and approved certification for settlement purposes, noting that common issues and preferable procedure criteria were satisfied.

The court further approved a $5.3 million settlement with the settling defendant, including cooperation provisions and a most‑favoured‑nation clause, finding the compromise fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

An interim class counsel fee award of $800,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax was approved, subject to possible adjustment depending on future settlements.