Christopher Michael Davis Hubbard

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the Canadian canned tuna market.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding a failure to plead material facts for a reasonable cause of action and an insufficient evidentiary basis for common issues.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the claim lacked material facts to support a Canadian conspiracy and that there was no sufficient factual basis for the proposed common issues, particularly given the distinct Canadian and U.S. tuna markets.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the lower court's order effectively ended the proceeding.

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding costs for an interim injunction motion.

The defendants sought to revisit the costs award, arguing that an offer to settle the motion should attract costs consequences under Rule 49.

The court found that the defendants' offer was insufficient as it did not fully address the plaintiff's concerns, particularly regarding non-solicitation, and that the plaintiff had obtained what it sought.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to revisit the costs, affirming the original costs award to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an insurance brokerage, brought a motion for interim injunctive relief to prevent former employees and rival brokerages from using confidential client information and soliciting clients.

The individual defendants resigned en masse and allegedly used client lists from the plaintiff.

The defendants argued an injunction was unnecessary due to an undertaking not to use confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm due to the alienation of confidential information, and that the balance of inconvenience favored the plaintiff.

An interim injunction was granted prohibiting the defendants from possessing, disclosing, using (including for solicitation), altering, destroying, copying, removing, or transferring the plaintiff's confidential information, including information acquired mentally.

A separate non-solicitation order was not granted, as the confidential information injunction was deemed sufficient.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

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.

This appeal addresses issues of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens in a complex international insurance coverage dispute.

Vale and RSA initiated actions in Ontario seeking coverage for environmental liabilities, primarily in Ontario, after Travelers commenced a similar action in New York.

The motion judge largely found Ontario had jurisdiction and was not forum non conveniens, except for North River.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeals, affirming Ontario's jurisdiction over them, and allowed Vale's appeal, finding Ontario also had jurisdiction over North River.

The court emphasized that a comprehensive general liability insurer underwriting Ontario risks connects itself to Ontario for jurisdictional purposes, and that the "first-to-file" rule does not automatically determine the appropriate forum.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

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 appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a lower court order that declared his debts would survive bankruptcy and lifted a stay of proceedings.

The respondent opposed the extension, arguing there was no right to appeal without leave and that the appeal lacked merit.

The respondent also brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time, finding that the appellant had a right to appeal under sections 193(c) and 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and that the proposed appeal had arguable merit.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion for security for costs, concluding that the "other good reason" test under Rule 61.06(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not met, given the appellant's impecuniosity and the arguable merit of the appeal.

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.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant cardiac surgeon for failing to obtain informed consent after the plaintiff suffered permanent vision loss following life-saving heart valve surgery.

The defendant moved for summary judgment.

The court held that the presence of a jury notice does not alter the test for summary judgment.

Applying the modified objective test for causation, the court found that even if the remote risk of blindness was a material risk that should have been disclosed, no reasonable person in the plaintiff's position—facing an 80% chance of death within three years without the surgery—would have declined the procedure.

The plaintiff also admitted in cross-examination that he would have consented if presented with the relative risks.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff, Carillion Construction Inc., brought a motion to compel answers to a refused question during the "executive discovery" of the City of Toronto's representative.

The question sought disclosure of all relevant facts known by a key City employee, Jelena Rekalic, or relayed by her to others or counsel.

The City argued that such communications were protected by solicitor-client and litigation privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad request for "every fact" conveyed by Ms. Rekalic would improperly trench upon privilege and effectively constitute a second discovery without leave, which is not permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

This case conference addressed the scheduling of Carillion Construction Inc.'s motion for further productions against the City of Toronto and NORR Limited in a complex multi-party construction litigation concerning Toronto's Union Station project.

Carillion sought various production orders and a discovery completion deadline prior to a scheduled mediation.

The City and NORR argued for delaying the motion until after mediation, citing the volume of existing documents and the laborious process of retrieving new ones.

The court determined that Carillion's motion should proceed prior to mediation, finding no cogent reason to delay the argument, but indicated that the actual production of documents, if ordered, could potentially be deferred until after the mediation.

The court urged counsel to schedule the motion.

This endorsement from a case conference provides updates on the progress of multiple consolidated actions.

Key discussions included the status of document production between Carillion and the City of Toronto, scheduled motions by the City against subcontractors for document production, and a hearing for construction lien matters.

The endorsement also addressed NORR Limited's statement of claim against the City, the participation of various subcontractors in mediation, and Metrolinx's contemplation of motions for particulars and to strike against the City's third-party claim.

The court set a timeline for Metrolinx to decide on its participation in the upcoming mediation, contingent on the outcome of its motion for particulars.