Craig P. Dennis

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action against Yahoo!

Inc. and Yahoo!

Canada Co. for privacy breaches brought a consent motion for a pre-certification representation order.

The order sought to appoint Charney Lawyers PC as representative counsel to negotiate a holdback agreement with Altaba Inc. (formerly Yahoo) during its dissolution in Delaware.

This agreement would secure potential creditor claims for the approximately 5 million putative class members in Canada.

The court granted the order, finding it necessary and desirable under Rule 10.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, to protect the interests of the unascertained class members and ensure the fair and expeditious determination of the class proceeding, drawing parallels to representation orders in CCAA proceedings.

Following the dismissal of the foreign tobacco defendants' jurisdictional appeals, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the appeals.

The appellants argued that costs should be capped at $100,000, asserting that the Crown treated the five appeals as one by filing a common factum.

The Court rejected this argument, finding no $100,000 ceiling exists for costs awards in the Court of Appeal.

Given the complexity, the $50 billion stakes, and the necessity of responding to five separate appeals, the Court fixed the Crown's partial indemnity costs at $237,332.50, apportioned between the BAT and RJR appellants.

The appellant used funds advanced by the respondent to purchase property in his own name.

The respondent claimed a beneficial interest via purchase money resulting trust.

The Supreme Court declined to abandon the purchase money resulting trust doctrine in favour of unjust enrichment, holding that the doctrine provides certainty and predictability.

The Court found the trial judge correctly concluded the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, as the respondent's contribution matched the exact amount of tax arrears it owed to a third party, and the respondent's own fax stated the funds were advanced without conditions or requirements.

Ontario sued foreign and domestic tobacco manufacturers under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 to recover health care costs.

Six foreign defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

The foreign defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory claim was analogous to a tort committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's findings that Ontario established a good arguable case and affirmed the costs award.

Following dismissal of jurisdiction motions brought by several foreign tobacco companies in a health care cost recovery action, the court determined costs.

The unsuccessful moving parties argued that earlier evidentiary and procedural steps constituted separate proceedings and sought substantial costs for those steps.

The court rejected that characterization, holding that all preliminary steps formed part of the overall jurisdiction challenge and that distributive costs awards based on success on individual steps should be avoided.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and general costs principles, the court found the responding party was the successful party and entitled to costs, subject to reductions reflecting partial success on certain evidentiary and motion issues.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $425,000 plus disbursements, allocating liability between two groups of moving defendants.

The Crown brought an action under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act against several domestic and foreign tobacco companies, claiming $50 billion for health care costs related to tobacco disease.

Six foreign defendants brought motions to set aside service ex juris and stay or dismiss the action, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the Crown had established a good arguable case that the foreign defendants conspired and acted in concert to commit tobacco-related wrongs, establishing a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Government of British Columbia and a class of consumers brought separate actions against tobacco companies regarding the health impacts of smoking and 'light' cigarettes.

The tobacco companies issued third-party notices against the Government of Canada, claiming contribution and indemnity based on negligent misrepresentation, negligent design, failure to warn, and statutory liability.

Canada brought motions to strike the third-party claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Canada's appeals and struck all third-party claims.

The Court held that Canada's alleged representations and design decisions regarding low-tar cigarettes were core government policy decisions immune from tort liability.

Furthermore, Canada did not qualify as a 'manufacturer' or 'supplier' under the relevant provincial statutes.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the government of British Columbia to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover health care costs related to tobacco exposure.

The appellants argued the Act was ultra vires due to extra-territoriality, violated judicial independence, and offended the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Act's pith and substance is property and civil rights in the province, it does not interfere with the adjudicative role of the courts, and it does not violate the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law.

The respondents, staff lawyers with the federal Department of Justice, sued the federal Crown for breach of contract regarding salary disparities.

During discovery, the government claimed Cabinet confidentiality over certain documents under s. 39 of the Canada Evidence Act, including some previously listed as producible.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 39 provides absolute protection once information is validly certified by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and the common law concept of waiver does not apply.

The Court also upheld the constitutionality of s. 39, finding it does not impermissibly infringe on the core jurisdiction of superior courts or unwritten constitutional principles.

The Law Society of British Columbia sought an injunction against an immigration consultant, arguing he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law under the provincial Legal Profession Act.

The consultant argued his activities were authorized by the federal Immigration Act, which permits non-lawyers to represent aliens for a fee before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the subject matter has a double aspect, falling under both federal jurisdiction over aliens and provincial jurisdiction over civil rights.

Applying the paramountcy doctrine, the Court found an operational conflict between the two statutes and held that the federal Immigration Act prevails, rendering the provincial prohibition inoperative to the extent of the conflict.

The appellant was injured when his motorcycle tire became trapped in a flangeway gap alongside railway tracks running down the centre of a street.

The trial judge found the railways liable in negligence and nuisance, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the railways' compliance with statutory and regulatory standards precluded liability.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, abolishing the long-standing 'special rule' that limited a railway's duty of care to statutory compliance.

The Court held that statutory compliance does not necessarily exhaust the common law standard of care, and the railways were negligent in failing to minimize the risk posed by the flangeways.

The Court also restored the trial judge's findings on public nuisance and the absence of contributory negligence.