Court Peterson

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

This endorsement concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees in two consolidated proceedings (Johnson et al. v. Ontario and Sabourin v. Ontario) alleging deplorable conditions at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The court approved a settlement of $32,795,400 and class counsel fees of $9,388,207.92, finding the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, given the significant litigation risks, the protracted nature of the actions, and the desire for a certain outcome for the thousands of affected class members.

The contingency fee agreements and the requested fees were also deemed fair and reasonable.

The defendants in two related class actions brought motions to compel the representative plaintiffs to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The refused questions related to the plaintiffs' individual medical and employment histories, reasons for detention, and other individual experiences.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, holding that discovery prior to a common issues trial is limited to the common issues.

The court found that the individual damages questions were not relevant to the common issues of systemic negligence or aggregate damages, which must be determined without reference to the circumstances of individual class members.

The applicant, a retail appliance store, sought a declaration that it was permitted to remain open for in-person shopping during the COVID-19 grey lockdown stage in Toronto and Peel.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential business under O. Reg 82/20, either as a 'hardware store' or as part of the construction supply chain.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislature intended the term 'hardware store' to be given its conventional, everyday meaning, which does not include a store exclusively selling home appliances.

The court rejected the applicant's attempt to stretch the plain language of the regulation.

The applicant, a home appliance retailer, sought an interim injunction to allow its showrooms to remain open despite being ordered to close under Covid-19 public health regulations.

The applicant argued it qualified as an essential 'hardware store' and would suffer irreparable financial harm if closed during the busy December retail season.

The court dismissed the request for interim relief, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and potential irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court held that the public interest in enforcing public health measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19 outweighed the applicant's private economic interests at this preliminary stage.

In a class proceeding concerning a college program that failed to deliver promised professional designations, the court issued an addendum addressing the residual market value of the diploma received by class members.

The court reconsidered supplementary submissions regarding whether the diploma had measurable value independent of the promised designations.

While the plaintiffs argued the diploma had little or no value and the defendant contended it retained full value, the court determined that the diploma had limited residual value based on evidence about employment outcomes, educational background of students, and survey data.

The court concluded that the residual value of the diploma was approximately 15% of the direct costs incurred by class members.

Aggregate damages were therefore fixed at 85% of the direct costs for students who completed the program.

The plaintiffs, former students of a post-graduate international business program, brought a class action against the defendant college.

The college's course calendar represented that the program provided the opportunity to complete three industry designations in addition to a graduate certificate.

The students discovered that the college had no agreements with the industry associations and could not confer the designations.

The court found that the college was negligent in making the misrepresentation and breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, as the students were 'consumers' under the Act.

The plaintiffs were entitled to monetary compensation, with damages to be determined in a subsequent phase.

The defendant brought a motion in a certified class proceeding to compel answers to refusals, undertakings, and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery of the representative plaintiffs.

The underlying action alleged negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 arising from statements in a college program calendar suggesting students could obtain certain industry designations.

The court reviewed the disputed discovery questions through the lens of proportionality and the principle that discovery before the common issues trial in a class action is generally limited to the certified common issues.

Many of the defendant’s requests were refused because they sought privileged communications, attempted discovery of class members, or addressed individual issues unrelated to the common issues.

Some limited answers were ordered where they would assist the defendant in understanding the case it must meet.