Christine Galea

This is a class proceeding settlement approval decision arising from a fire on November 12, 2019, in the parking garage of Westcourt Place, an apartment building in downtown Windsor.

The building contained approximately 150 residential apartments and 80,000 square feet of commercial space.

The occupants were displaced and sued the defendant owner and manager.

The parties reached a settlement of $7,300,000 after mediation and protracted negotiations.

The court approved the settlement despite objections from the City of Windsor and some residential tenants.

The court rejected the City's objection on the basis that it failed to opt out of the class proceeding by the deadline and did not establish excusable neglect.

The court also approved counsel fees of $2,190,000 plus disbursements and taxes under a 30% contingency fee agreement, and declined to award honoraria to the representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The bankrupt sought an absolute discharge.

The Trustee and opposing creditors opposed it, citing the bankrupt's failure to account for assets, rash and hazardous speculations, and failure to perform duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The court found several facts under s.173(1) of the BIA proven, including the assets not being of a value equal to fifty cents on the dollar, failure to account for loss of assets, and rash speculation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge requiring a significant payment, a five-year ban on unsecured credit, a ten-year ban on soliciting investments, and a five-year suspension of discharge, emphasizing the need to balance debtor rehabilitation with commercial morality and public interest.

Following the successful certification of a class proceeding arising from a residential high-rise fire, the court determined the costs of the certification motion.

The plaintiffs sought over $435,000 in costs from the defendant, while the third parties sought their costs from the plaintiffs.

Applying the Pearson factors, the court awarded the plaintiffs $348,056.04 in costs against the defendant.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had drawn the third parties into the certification motion by amending the common issues, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay $45,200 in costs to the third parties.

This decision concerns a motion for certification of a class action following a fire in an apartment building.

The court addressed preliminary issues of jurisdiction (Superior Court vs. Landlord and Tenant Board), admissibility of an expert report, and the involvement of third parties.

The court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because the total amount claimed exceeded the LTB's monetary limit, even if individual claims might be smaller.

The expert report was deemed admissible for certification purposes.

The class action was certified, with modifications to the proposed class definition and common issues.

Specifically, the court removed references to "contractors" and "subcontractors" from common issues related to the Third Parties, as no direct cause of action was pleaded against them by the plaintiffs.

The court emphasized access to justice and behaviour modification as key factors favoring certification.