Darryl Singer

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a $650,000 settlement in a class action arising from an apartment building fire that displaced hundreds of residents.

The fire was allegedly caused by a space heater, which the plaintiffs claimed was necessary due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate heating.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the litigation risks and the meaningful compensation it provides to vulnerable class members.

The court also approved class counsel's 25% contingency fee and disbursements totaling $189,432.72.

The plaintiffs in a certified class action arising from a fatal high-rise fire sought court approval for the form and method of dissemination of the proposed Notice of Settlement under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court found the proposed notices provided adequate information to class members regarding the terms of the proposed settlement, the procedure for voicing objections, and the timeline.

The court approved the form of notice and the proposed dissemination methods, including email, media distribution, toll-free telephone service, and website posting.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Canada, setting aside the conditional certification of a class action brought by Andrew Knisley, a veteran, regarding the administration of disability benefits by Veterans Affairs Canada.

The court found that conditional certification is not permitted under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether an identifiable class exists.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s finding that the claim in negligence disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of female cadets who allegedly suffered sexual misconduct while enrolled in the Cadet Program.

The plaintiffs alleged systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion.

While the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the other claims were struck.

The court found the plaintiffs failed to provide some basis in fact that there was an identifiable class of two or more persons, that the claims raised common issues, or that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the allegations would require highly individualized inquiries.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict from a motor vehicle accident trial where the jury found she suffered injuries but not a loss of competitive advantage.

The appellant argued the jury's answers were irreconcilable and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict, finding it was supported by evidence and met the high standard of appellate review for jury findings.

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiff sought damages for a slip and fall incident on the steps of a store during snowy winter conditions.

The court found the defendant, Bayview Summit Development Limited, 75% liable for failing to maintain a sufficient system of inspection, monitoring, and maintenance of the premises.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and not using the handrail.

The decision emphasizes the occupier's duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and the standard of reasonableness, not perfection.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of veterans who experienced delays in the processing of disability benefits.

The court applied the five-part test under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court struck the claims for breach of s. 7 of the Charter, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

However, the court found the negligence claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court certified the class action for the negligence claim, conditional on the plaintiff amending the class definition.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

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 moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Papageorgiou J. dated May 1, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties failed to provide a Costs Outline.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiff, Debt Aid Consulting Inc., a debt relief marketing company, sued the defendant, Financial Rescue LLC, a competitor, alleging breaches of the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act, the Business Names Act, and the Competition Act, and tortious interference with economic relations.

The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant was not entitled to conduct business or advertise in Canada, and damages for lost business and increased advertising costs.

The court found that the defendant's activities were marketing services and did not fall within the definitions of a "collection agency" or "debt settlement service" under the CDSSA.

The court also found no evidence of false or misleading representations under the Competition Act or the elements required for intentional interference with economic relations.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff, Laelana Ali, sought damages for loss of competitive advantage (LOCA) following a bicycle-car collision where liability was admitted.

The defendants brought a non-suit motion and argued that the LOCA claim should not be put to the jury due to insufficient medical evidence.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that despite thin evidence, there was enough for the jury to judicially consider the LOCA claim, as such claims are less amenable to precise calculations and do not strictly require expert medical evidence if corroborated by other testimony.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 20, 2022, regarding a certification motion.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and noted that the parties could apply to the Court of Appeal to have this appeal heard together with the pending appeal of the dismissal of the balance of the certification motion.

No costs were awarded as costs outlines were not filed.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a 4-day jury trial where the plaintiff was successful on liability but found contributorily negligent, resulting in an award of $58,590.09.

The plaintiff sought $206,960.36 in costs, while the defendants proposed $45,400.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and considering Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's requested costs disproportionate and unreasonable due to excessive hourly fees and unnecessary disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to discontinue a proposed employment class action against the defendant.

The representative plaintiffs were found to be unsuitable or in conflict with the class, and no replacement plaintiffs could be found.

The court granted the discontinuance without costs and without prejudice, finding no prejudice to putative class members as the limitation period had been tolled and notice would be provided to those who had come forward.

The plaintiff, an experienced private lender, brought an action against a law clerk and two lawyers for negligence, fraud, and conspiracy arising from defaulted mortgage investments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked evidentiary support.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting her claims well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care for the professional negligence claims and offered no evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action arising from a fire at an apartment building in Toronto, which allegedly caused significant property damage and personal injuries.

The fire was alleged to have resulted from a faulty electrical system or a malfunctioning space heater.

The defendants consented to certification, conceding that the statutory criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court certified the action, defined the class and sub-classes, and approved the agreed-upon common issues.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision and a reconsideration decision denying her claim for accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

She argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and failed to provide sufficient reasons by not explicitly referring to a medical report from her orthopedic surgeon.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an adjudicator is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in their reasons, and the reasons provided were detailed and demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidentiary record.