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.

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.

An aircraft struck the ground while attempting to land at Halifax Stanfield International Airport during a snowstorm, injuring passengers who subsequently commenced a class action.

The aircraft manufacturer brought an interlocutory motion to compel the Transportation Safety Board to produce the cockpit voice recorder and transcripts, which were protected by statutory privilege under s. 28 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Board sought to make submissions in the absence of the public and other parties, which the chambers judge refused.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Board's appeal, holding that s. 28(6)(b) does not confer a general right on the Board to make submissions in the absence of other parties, and that the chambers judge did not commit a reviewable error in ordering disclosure after concluding that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the statutory privilege.

The majority held the test under s. 28(6)(c) requires the moving party to establish that the recording is relevant, probative, and necessary to resolve the dispute — not merely relevant — and that disclosure should not be routine.

Côté and Brown JJ. dissented, finding the chambers judge committed multiple reviewable errors in his balancing analysis.

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 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.

This case conference endorsement outlines procedural progress in a complex, multi-party construction litigation involving Carillion Construction Inc., the City of Toronto, and NORR Limited, among others.

The court addressed the schedule for executive discoveries, ruling that they must proceed as planned, contrary to the City's submission.

It also confirmed the mediation schedule for March-April 2019, involving various claimants and insurers.

Further directions were given regarding documentary production by subcontractors and the City's amended third-party claim against Metrolinx, setting deadlines for Metrolinx's response or motion.

The appellant appealed the summary dismissal of a medical malpractice action arising from the death of his common law spouse from terminal brain cancer.

The appellant alleged that the defendant physicians breached the standard of care by terminating the drug dexamethasone without tapering and by failing to obtain informed consent.

The motion judge dismissed the action after finding that the appellant's expert evidence was insufficient to establish a genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant failed to provide qualified expert evidence on standard of care and causation, and that the evidence supported informed consent had been obtained.

The plaintiff, Sarah Salisbury, sued Dr. Stephen Kraft for medical negligence, specifically alleging a lack of informed consent for a strabismus surgery that resulted in permanent double vision (diplopia).

Dr. Kraft moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not satisfy the modified objective test for causation or establish a breach of his disclosure obligations.

The court, applying Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have opted for the surgery given the limited alternatives and her prior positive experience with the same procedure.

The court also found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the alleged lack of disclosure unreliable when weighed against Dr. Kraft's contemporaneous notes and invariable professional practice.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice claim against several physician and hospital defendants following the death of his common-law spouse from aggressive brain cancer.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of expert evidence to establish professional negligence and causation, and that the duty to obtain informed consent rested with the physicians, not the hospital pharmacies.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the plaintiff's expert evidence was insufficient and causation was not established.

The plaintiff alleged that his former spouse knowingly infected him with HIV and sued multiple defendants, including the federal Crown, an immigration medical examiner, and the employer of the spouse.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment dismissing the claims.

The court held that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of material facts when he was diagnosed as HIV‑positive in March 2004 but commenced the action in 2008.

The court further held that neither the federal government nor the immigration physician owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff under the Anns/Cooper framework, and there was no evidentiary basis for negligence or vicarious liability against the nightclub employer.

The claims against all moving defendants were dismissed.

Competing applications were brought concerning whether a contractual dispute arising from the termination of an agreement to design and build a diabetes registry should proceed by arbitration or litigation.

One party sought appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the agreement, while the other sought to have the dispute determined through litigation in the Superior Court and consolidated with related defamation proceedings.

Before hearing the applications, the court proposed procedural options, and the parties agreed to proceed with litigation in the Superior Court under case management with an expedited trial schedule.

The applications were adjourned to a case conference to establish a litigation plan, and related defamation actions were transferred to the Commercial List for coordinated management.

Competing applications were brought concerning whether a contractual dispute arising from the termination of an agreement to design and build a diabetes registry should proceed by arbitration or litigation.

One party sought appointment of an arbitrator pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the agreement, while the other sought to have the dispute determined through litigation in the Superior Court and consolidated with related defamation proceedings.

Before hearing the applications, the court proposed procedural options, and the parties agreed to proceed with litigation in the Superior Court under case management with an expedited trial schedule.

The applications were adjourned to a case conference to establish a litigation plan, and related defamation actions were transferred to the Commercial List for coordinated management.

An Ontario mining company sued numerous foreign engineering firms and engineers for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract following a landslide that closed a gold mine in Costa Rica.

The moving defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

Applying the framework from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court considered whether presumptive connecting factors established a real and substantial connection with Ontario.

The court held that neither alleged reliance on advice in Ontario, damages suffered in Ontario, nor business connections through related companies established sufficient jurisdictional ties.

Any connection to Ontario was tenuous, as the engineering services, alleged wrongdoing, and resulting physical damage occurred primarily in Costa Rica and the United States.

The court concluded that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and therefore declined to assume jurisdiction over the moving defendants.