Elizabeth Bowker

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.

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

This is a costs decision arising from a class action certification motion concerning the now-defunct "birth alerts" policy issued by Children's Aid Societies in Ontario.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the province of Ontario and 50 CAS defendants on behalf of mothers claiming compensation for discriminatory treatment.

The court certified the action against Ontario but denied certification against the CAS defendants due to structural defects in the pleading (the Ragoonanan problem).

The plaintiffs settled with Ontario for $300,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The CAS defendants sought $564,318.61 in costs.

The court reduced this amount to $335,000, applying a 40% discount under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act to reflect the public interest nature of the case and access to justice concerns.

The decision concerns the certification and approval of a partial settlement in a class action regarding business interruption insurance for dentists, specifically Aviva’s “Triple Guard” policies marketed by CDSPI.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes as against CDSPI and approved the settlement, finding that all statutory criteria were met and that the settlement was fair and reasonable.

The court also dismissed Aviva’s motion for a stay, holding that disclosure of the settlement was timely and that Aviva’s rights were not prejudiced by the settlement or its timing.

This endorsement addresses a scheduling dispute in a class action involving dentists who purchased insurance policies brokered by CDSPI Advisory Services Inc. and issued by Aviva companies.

The plaintiffs sought to adjourn upcoming motions for settlement approval and a stay of proceedings, pending an anticipated Court of Appeal decision in Thrive Capital Management Ltd. et al v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc. et al., which may reconsider the principles in Handley Estate v. DTE Industries Limited regarding partial settlements.

The court declined to adjourn, emphasizing the need for timely resolution and noting that new procedural rules (Rule 49.14) would be in force for the scheduled hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

This decision certifies a class action against the Province of Ontario regarding the issuance of "Birth Alerts" by Ontario children's aid societies (CASs), but declines to certify the action against the CASs themselves.

The court finds that the claims against the CASs suffer from the "Ragoonanan problem"—the lack of a representative plaintiff with a claim against each defendant—and that the CASs acted independently, not collectively.

The action against Ontario, however, is certified on the basis of negligence and breaches of sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, as the Province had oversight authority and failed to act to stop the practice despite being able to do so.

The court sets out the certified class, common issues, and clarifies the preferable procedure for such claims.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

The Plaintiffs in multiple class actions brought an omnibus motion for approval of a proposed notice plan, including direct notice and production orders from Defendants, following a complex certification decision where some actions were certified, some partially, and some dismissed.

The court denied the request for direct notice and associated production orders, finding it would impose a substantial and undue burden on defendants, particularly those against whom certification was denied.

The court also noted that such production could be seen as an attempt to solicit new representative plaintiffs or re-litigate issues already decided at the certification stage.

An indirect notice strategy was approved, and costs for the notice plan were allocated, with the Plaintiffs bearing a larger share.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity brought by various Children's Aid Societies (CAS) against Dr. Gideon Koren and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in the context of the "Motherisk Cases." The court partially granted the motions, striking claims for contribution and indemnity based on the Negligence Act, as the CAS was not found liable to the original plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity based on breach of contract, finding it was not plain and obvious that such claims, including those relying on a principled exception to privity of contract, would fail.

HSC's claim was struck as unopposed.

One of Dr. Koren's crossclaims was struck with leave to amend to properly plead a contract claim.

The court also ordered consolidation of one of Dr. Koren's actions with a related M.M. Action.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in a systemic negligence class action against a psychiatric hospital and the Province of Ontario, the successful defendants sought costs.

Waypoint claimed approximately $1.3 million and Ontario claimed approximately $815,000.

The court found the claimed amounts to be fair and reasonable given the complexity of the case and the resources expended by the plaintiffs.

Applying section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court applied an approximate 10% discount due to the public interest nature of the litigation, awarding Waypoint $1,170,000 and Ontario $735,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ontario, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, and individual hospital administrators, alleging systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and Charter violations related to the use of seclusion and restraints at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that while some patients may have individual claims for culpable seclusion, there was no basis in fact for systemic wrongdoing.

The court concluded that the claims lacked commonality, as the use of restraints required highly individualized clinical assessments, and that a joinder action, rather than a class proceeding, was the preferable procedure.

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 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 plaintiffs brought a motion for case management of 43 individual negligence actions against the defendants, operators of long-term care homes.

These actions originated from a proposed class action that was discontinued in 2018 and replaced with individual claims.

On consent, the parties agreed to withdraw the case management motion without costs, subject to terms including scheduling discoveries in designated actions and requiring the plaintiffs to bring motions to discontinue 25 of the actions.

The defendants, Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. and Danny Ip, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims of negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract by Foremost Mortgage Holding Corporation (FMHC).

FMHC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Foremost Financial Corp. (FFC), relied on an appraisal report prepared by the defendants for mortgage financing.

The appraisal and a subsequent reliance letter explicitly authorized only FFC (and initially CTC Bank of Canada) to rely on it, with clear limiting language.

The court found that FFC and FMHC are separate legal entities and that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to FMHC, as FMHC was not an authorized party to rely on the appraisal.

Consequently, FMHC's claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a $10 million settlement in a certified class action against a ballet school and a former instructor/photographer for alleged sexual assault and privacy breaches.

The plaintiffs also sought approval of Class Counsel's fees and honoraria for the representative plaintiffs and certain class members.

The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved Class Counsel's fee request of $2.25 million.

However, the court declined to approve the requested honoraria, holding on principle that the practice of awarding a stipend to representative plaintiffs for prosecuting a civil claim is contrary to the administration of justice and should be stopped.

The defendants, Toronto Hydro and the City of Toronto, sought leave to issue third-party claims against the plaintiffs (a building owner and two tenants) and various former owners and property managers for contribution and indemnity following a fire in a hydro vault.

The plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that covenants to insure in their leases shielded them from liability to each other, rendering the third-party claims legally untenable under the Supreme Court's decisions in T. Eaton Co. and Giffels.

The court granted leave in part, allowing claims against parties in capacities not shielded by the insurance covenants (e.g., former owners, property managers), but dismissed the motions regarding claims against the landlord and tenant in their capacities governed by the leases.

The court also rejected the argument that covenants to insure should be treated as exclusion clauses subject to public policy exceptions.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action on behalf of debenture holders of Discovery Air Inc., alleging oppression by the defendants in a series of transactions that transferred Discovery's primary asset to Clairvest at a material discount.

Clairvest consented to certification but disputed the common issues and sought discovery directions, while the remaining defendants argued the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against them.

The court found the pleadings sufficiently detailed to disclose a cause of action against the individual directors and the Top Aces entities.

The court certified the action, adopted a broad definition of the common issues with some additions proposed by Clairvest regarding causation and reasonable expectations, and declined to order non-party production or expanded discovery at this early stage.

A class representative of Mr. Sub franchisees appealed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their negligence claim against an exclusive meat supplier following a 2008 listeria recall that caused significant economic losses.

The majority held that the supplier owed no duty of care to the franchisees in respect of pure economic losses because the parties lacked the proximity required under the Anns/Cooper framework.

The majority found that neither the negligent misrepresentation nor the negligent supply of shoddy goods categories of pure economic loss applied, and that the multipartite contractual matrix — under which the franchisees could have sought alternative supply sources — precluded a finding of proximity.

The dissent would have recognized a novel duty of care arising from the close and direct relationship between the exclusive supplier and the franchisees who were contractually bound to purchase exclusively from it.

The appeal was dismissed five-to-four, with costs.