Christopher Hubbard

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendant, alleging that ethanol emissions from the defendant's whisky aging warehouses caused the growth of 'whiskey fungus' that damaged their properties.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action, there was no identifiable class rationally connected to the common issues, and the individual issues predominated over any common issues.

The court also excluded the plaintiffs' proposed expert evidence due to a lack of evidence regarding their qualifications, and found the proposed representative plaintiffs unsuitable as their claims appeared statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify two proposed class actions alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix prices of canned tuna sold in Canada, relying on findings from US antitrust proceedings.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding no basis in fact that the alleged conspiracy existed in Canada.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria, as the market structure and participants in Canada were different from those in the US, and the plaintiff's expert evidence was based on incorrect factual assumptions.

The defendants in a certified class action regarding COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims brought a motion seeking joint adjudication and common case management of common questions across approximately 79 overlapping proceedings.

The motion was opposed by several plaintiffs in individual actions who wished to proceed independently.

The court dismissed the motion, affording deference to a prior case management decision that declined to stay the individual actions, and finding that forcing joint adjudication would inappropriately undermine the plaintiffs' right to opt out of the class proceeding and cause undue delay.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

Vale Canada and its primary insurer, RSA, brought actions against numerous excess insurers for coverage of environmental remediation costs incurred primarily in Ontario.

Several foreign excess insurers brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court or seeking a stay based on forum non conveniens in favour of an action in New York.

The court found it had jurisdiction over all moving insurers except North River Insurance Company, concluding that the insurers were 'carrying on business' in Ontario by participating in a global insurance program for an Ontario-based company.

The court declined to stay the actions for forum non conveniens, finding Ontario to be the 'centre of gravity' for the dispute.

Claims by Vale Canada against two UK insurers were stayed pending arbitration.

The plaintiffs brought an action against multiple insurers for indemnity regarding environmental damage.

Several foreign defendants failed to deliver statements of defence within the required time limits, and one was noted in default.

The defendants sought an extension of time to defend or bring jurisdictional motions, arguing the court should wait for the outcome of a parallel proceeding commenced by one of the insurers in the United States.

The court refused to delay the Ontario proceeding, finding no prejudice to the defendants in requiring them to respond timely, and ordered the defendants to deliver their statements of defence or motion records by a specified deadline.

Following the dismissal of the defendant insurers' motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions pending the determination of certification in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs requested $86,589, which the court found excessive for a relatively simple stay motion.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01(1) and considering proportionality, the court fixed costs at $35,000 all-inclusive, payable by the defendant insurers.

The defendant insurers brought a motion to temporarily stay 17 individual actions for COVID-19 business interruption losses pending the certification of a related class action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was overlap in issues and facts, staying the individual actions would cause significant injustice and prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had legitimate reasons for pursuing their claims individually and expeditiously.

The moving parties, a syndicate of six banks, sought to partially lift an automatic stay of a bankruptcy order pending appeal under s. 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The banks argued that the appellant was frustrating the bankruptcy process and might dissipate her assets.

The court found that the appellant's grounds of appeal were extremely weak and that maintaining the stay would prejudice the banks by preventing the trustee from identifying and preserving assets.

The court granted the motion, partially lifting the stay to allow the trustee to exercise specific powers under the BIA.

Following a jury verdict in a medical negligence action, the plaintiffs moved for judgment in accordance with the verdict, while the defendant physicians sought dismissal of the action or a retrial on the basis that there was no evidence supporting causation.

The court reviewed the narrow circumstances under which a trial judge may refuse to enter judgment consistent with a jury’s verdict under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 52.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs failed to establish a key link in the causal chain regarding whether mechanical cardiac support could have been obtained within a limited treatment window.

The court found there was some evidence from expert testimony and surrounding facts permitting the jury to infer that appropriate mechanical assistance could have been obtained through inter‑hospital transfer.

Because the verdict was supported by some evidence and the jury’s answers could sustain judgment, the court entered judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

During a Commercial List proceeding involving cross-applications between a technology services provider and a provincial agency, the court conducted a case conference addressing litigation management issues.

The court reviewed the parties’ progress under an agreed Litigation Plan, including pleadings exchange and initial documentary production consisting of thousands of documents.

The parties were directed to exchange annotated production requests identifying disputed categories and to meet to resolve disagreements.

A further case conference was scheduled to address remaining production disputes.

The court also encouraged the parties to organize disputed issues chronologically to clarify the technically interrelated events underlying the dispute.

During a Commercial List proceeding involving cross-applications between a technology services provider and a provincial agency, the court conducted a case conference addressing litigation management issues.

The court reviewed the parties’ progress under an agreed Litigation Plan, including pleadings exchange and initial documentary production consisting of thousands of documents.

The parties were directed to exchange annotated production requests identifying disputed categories and to meet to resolve disagreements.

A further case conference was scheduled to address remaining production disputes.

The court also encouraged the parties to organize disputed issues chronologically to clarify the technically interrelated events underlying the dispute.