Charles Edward Hatt

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec issued a joint decision in three related class actions against the Attorney General of Canada.

Following the approval of a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, the parties sought approval for minor typographical corrections and various translated administrative documents, including notice forms and claim forms.

The courts approved the corrections and the submitted documents, and directed the parties to submit the claims administrator's terms of appointment once finalized.

The parties in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries sought court approval for a revised Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, notices, and forms.

The courts approved the documents but revised the proposed opt-out procedure to ensure that all putative class members detained in administrative segregation after December 12, 2016, who had not previously had an opportunity to opt out, were granted a first-time opportunity to do so.

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding against the Crown for failure to hold timely bail hearings, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter rights violations.

The motion judge dismissed certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no cause of action in negligence (claims attacked core policy decisions), the fiduciary duty claim abandoned, and the Charter claims lacking common issues and not being a preferable procedure due to the need for individualized assessments.

The respondent, representing a class of seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates held in prolonged administrative segregation, brought a class action against Ontario for Charter breaches and systemic negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that Ontario's use of administrative segregation violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, and awarded $30 million in aggregate Charter damages.

Ontario appealed, arguing that the Charter breaches were not established for all seriously mentally ill inmates, that Charter damages were inappropriate due to good governance concerns, and that the negligence claim was barred by statute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that administrative segregation of seriously mentally ill inmates constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, that Ontario's clear disregard for inmates' rights justified Charter damages, and that the operational implementation of segregation policies grounded a valid systemic negligence claim.

This is Part 2 of a joint decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec concerning the Brazeau, Reddock, and Gallone class actions.

The courts finalized and approved the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol, which governs the distribution of the aggregate damages award and the procedures for determining individual issues.

The decision addresses submissions from the parties on a provisional draft protocol and resolves a late-arriving dispute between Class Counsel and the Law Foundation of Ontario regarding funding for the individual issues phase by deleting contentious provisions.

This motion sought the discontinuance of a certified and settled class action concerning the Participating Co-Operatives of Ontario Trusteed Revised Pension Plan.

The action had been certified in 2005 and a multi-million-dollar settlement approved in 2008 with most defendants.

Default judgment was obtained against the remaining Workman Defendants, and funds were recovered through enforcement proceedings in the Cayman Islands.

Class counsel paid the recovered funds to the Plan Administrator, who was ordered to locate participants and distribute entitlements.

With all issues of liability, remedy, and distribution addressed, and the Plan Administrator having completed its tasks, the court ordered the class action discontinued as there was no further reason for it to continue.

The court redetermined Charter damages in a class action concerning administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries, following an appeal that set aside the initial damages award.

The Court of Appeal affirmed liability but remitted the damages issue for redetermination on proper principles.

The court awarded $20 million for vindication, deterrence, compensation, and pre-judgment interest, to be distributed directly to class members.

For the purposes of individual issues trials, the per capita award is to be deemed compensatory damages.

This decision rejected Canada's submission for a $2.4 million award and the plaintiffs' alternative submission for $20 million solely for vindication and deterrence.

The representative plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of inmates in Ontario correctional institutions who were placed in administrative segregation.

The plaintiff alleged that Ontario's use of administrative segregation constituted systemic negligence and violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found that administrative segregation as practiced in Ontario was equivalent to solitary confinement and caused severe psychological harm, particularly to inmates with serious mental illness.

The court held that Ontario breached the inmates' Charter rights and was liable for systemic negligence at the operational level.

The court awarded $30 million in aggregate damages for compensation, vindication, and deterrence.

The plaintiffs and the Plan Administrator brought a motion in a class proceeding regarding the wind-up of a pension plan.

They sought approval for a plan to use settlement funds recovered from a defaulting defendant to search for unlocated pension plan members, prioritizing those with the largest entitlements, and to pay any remaining unclaimed funds into court.

The court approved the plan, finding it sensible and fair, and ordered that the Plan Administrator be discharged from its obligations under the Pension Benefits Act upon payment of the remaining funds into court.

Greenpeace Canada brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that the Ontario government unlawfully cancelled the cap and trade program without following the public consultation requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).

The Minister had claimed an exemption under the EBR, arguing that the recent general election was a substantially equivalent process of public participation.

The Divisional Court found that the election was not substantially equivalent and the government failed to comply with the EBR.

However, the application was dismissed because the government subsequently passed valid legislation repealing the cap and trade program and barring proceedings, rendering the requested declaratory relief of no practical effect.

In a certified class action regarding Ontario's use of administrative segregation, the plaintiff sought to summons an independent expert appointed by Ontario to testify on an upcoming summary judgment motion.

Ontario opposed the summons, arguing it violated procedural rules regarding the timing of examinations.

The court declined to order the examination at this juncture, finding that it was more proportionate to simply order that the expert's Final Report be delivered to class counsel for use on the summary judgment motion once it is provided to Ontario.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying application challenged the Minister's decision to invoke an exception under the Environmental Bill of Rights, bypassing public consultation for revoking the cap and trade program by claiming the recent provincial election was a substantially equivalent process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the scope of the Minister's exception power remains a live controversy despite the subsequent repeal of the relevant legislation.

The court further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the application to provide clarity on the statutory exemption.

The applicants, two environmental organizations, brought an application challenging the validity of Ontario Regulation 176/13 made under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

They argued the Minister failed to meet a mandatory condition precedent under s. 57(1) of the Act and that the regulation was inconsistent with the Act's purposes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had properly formed the required opinion that the regulation would not jeopardize the survival of species at risk, and that the regulation's balancing of environmental protection with economic considerations was consistent with the broader purposes of the Act.