Connor Campbell

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against Smith & Wesson for design negligence following the Danforth Shooting, where a stolen M&P®40 handgun without "authorized user" (smart gun) technology was used to kill and injure multiple people.

The plaintiffs argued that Smith & Wesson was negligent in failing to incorporate authorized user technology into the handgun's design.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the common issues and preferable procedure criteria.

Specifically, the plaintiffs did not provide expert evidence from a firearm design expert to establish some basis in fact that the absence of authorized user technology constituted a design defect, or that an alternative design was feasible without impairing the handgun's utility for its intended military and police users.

The defendant employer brought a motion to stay or dismiss the claim of one of the plaintiffs, who resided in Quebec, arguing that Quebec was the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The plaintiffs, who were all Vice-Presidents of Business Development, brought an action in Ontario for unpaid vacation pay.

Applying the Van Breda factors, the court found that the majority of key witnesses were in Ontario and that separating the Quebec plaintiff's claim would create a risk of multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The motion was dismissed, as the defendant failed to show that Quebec was a clearly more appropriate forum.

The proposed intervener, a shareholder of the respondent corporation and leader of an investor group, brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an application concerning the extension of an outside date for a recapitalization transaction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener's financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a direct interest in the subject matter of the private commercial dispute.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed intervener's intended evidence regarding foreign regulatory law would not make a useful contribution to the resolution of the proceeding.