Charles C. Roach

The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal of a decision refusing to certify their class action.

The respondents sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court adopted the approach of the motion judge, who had awarded approximately 15% of the amounts claimed by the respondents, reflecting the principle that costs against unsuccessful plaintiffs in certification motions are typically modest to promote access to justice.

Costs were fixed at $6,600 for the TTC, $1,600 for Pinchin Environmental, and $400 for the Crown.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to certify their action as a class proceeding.

The proposed class action concerned alleged asbestos exposure at a subway station during demolition activities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decisions to strike the amended statement of claim, conclude that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to overwhelming individual issues, and find the proposed representative plaintiffs unsuitable due to egregious delay and concerns regarding counsel's competency.

The appellants appealed a decision of the class proceedings judge who struck out their Amended Amended Statement of Claim.

The judge had put the appellants to an election to either abandon the proposed amendment or proceed with it after submissions on costs thrown away, pursuant to section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge made no error in her analysis and application of section 12 to ensure the fair and expeditious determination of the proceeding.

The appellant sued the respondents for libel arising from a newspaper article.

Prior to filing a statement of defence, one of the individual respondents successfully moved to strike the claim against him on the basis that he was not personally served with a libel notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the alternative mode of service in s. 5(1)—delivery to a grown-up person at the defendant's chief office—applies to all defendants, including individuals.

Delivery of the notice to an assistant at the respondent's campaign headquarters constituted effective service.

During a remedy hearing following a finding of discrimination, counsel for the Ontario Human Rights Commission withdrew after reaching a settlement with the respondents that the complainant rejected.

The respondents argued that the Board of Inquiry lost jurisdiction to continue based on the Divisional Court's ruling in Tilberg.

The Board distinguished Tilberg, noting the Commission had carried the complaint through the liability phase and made a purposive decision to allow the complainant to seek greater compensation.

The Board ruled it retained jurisdiction and ordered the hearing to proceed, with Commission counsel agreeing to attend the remainder of the hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which had overturned a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the Court of Appeal that the delay was not occasioned by a scarcity of judicial resources and did not warrant a stay.