D. Clifton Prowse

The Attorney General of Canada and the Joint Committee representing Class Members brought competing applications regarding the allocation of approximately $236 million in excess capital held in the trust fund established by the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement.

Canada argued the excess capital should be returned to it, while the Joint Committee sought to allocate the funds to increase benefits for Class Members.

The court dismissed Canada's application, finding that the excess capital allocation provision was intended to provide an opportunity to bridge compensatory gaps for Class Members.

The court approved seven of the Joint Committee's nine recommendations for allocating the funds, including increases to fixed payments and loss of services compensation, to be implemented by way of special distribution.

The appellant, an investor who lost money when a registered mortgage broker used funds for unauthorized purposes, brought a class action against the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers for negligence.

The appellant alleged the Registrar should have acted sooner to suspend the broker's licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Registrar did not owe a private law duty of care to the investors.

Applying the Anns test, the Court found insufficient proximity between the Registrar and the investors, as the governing statute imposed a duty to the public as a whole, not to individual investors.

Furthermore, policy considerations, including the spectre of indeterminate liability and the quasi-judicial nature of the Registrar's decisions, negated any prima facie duty of care.

The respondents sought to certify a class action on behalf of current and former students who were abused at a provincial residential school for the deaf and blind.

The province appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to certify the class.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents satisfied the certification requirements under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court held that the issues of systemic negligence and breach of duty were common to the class, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure for resolving these claims fairly and efficiently.