Emily Assini

This certified class action concerns economic losses allegedly sustained by corn growers due to the premature commercialization of genetically modified corn seed (Agrisure/Viptera/Duracade) by the defendants, Syngenta Canada Inc. and Syngenta AG.

The plaintiff alleges that Syngenta released the product into the North American market without obtaining import approval from China, leading to rejected shipments, a glut in domestic supply, and depressed corn prices.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of care to the class.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature due to the absence of documentary and oral discovery, and concluding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the existence of a duty of care, particularly concerning industry warnings to Syngenta and the interconnectedness of the corn market.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against Haventree Bank for settlement purposes.

The action alleged that the bank breached legislation and contract terms by automatically renewing mortgages at higher interest rates, leading to additional costs for class members.

The court granted the certification, finding that all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially in the context of a settlement.

The court also approved the notice plan and the appointment of a Claims Administrator.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion for approval of a negotiated settlement and class counsel fees in a class action arising from the defendant's failure to follow public health standards in sterilizing medical instruments at its wound care clinics.

The court approved the settlement, which established a $195,000 fund to compensate the Infected Persons Class, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $112,078.93 and a representative plaintiff honorarium of $1,500.

This appeal concerned a certified class action against Ford Motor Company regarding allegedly false or misleading fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels and in marketing materials for 2013 and 2014 vehicles.

The class action alleged breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection legislation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the class action, finding that Ford complied with mandatory federal guidelines for fuel consumption testing (2-Cycle Test) and that the representations were not false or misleading.

The court also addressed the "credulous and inexperienced consumer" standard, noting its applicability varies by statute, and found no deceptive non-disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to discontinue a proposed class action regarding a data breach involving Capital One.

The action had previously been stayed following a carriage motion where another action was granted carriage, but the stay was lifted after the other action was denied certification.

The court approved the discontinuance under section 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the test for discontinuance was met and ordering notice to be posted on class counsel's websites.

This certified class action concerned allegations of misleading advertising by Ford regarding fuel consumption estimates on EnerGuide labels for 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles, claiming breaches of the federal Competition Act and provincial consumer protection statutes.

Both parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding no contravention of the Competition Act due to Ford's compliance with federal guidelines and a lack of evidentiary support for a misleading general impression.

While provincial consumer protection laws allow for non-disclosure claims, the court found no legal obligation for Ford to provide additional disclosures (a "Second Label") beyond the EnerGuide Label and the referenced Fuel Consumption Guide, as there was no evidence that car buyers were deceived.

The defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the class action, was granted.

The defendant in a certified class action moved for partial summary judgment and sought leave under Rule 39.02 to admit an expert psychiatric report obtained after the representative plaintiff was cross-examined on her affidavits.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the defendant split its case and failed to comply with the court-ordered timetable.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding the defendant provided no adequate explanation for failing to obtain the evidence earlier and that admitting the late report would cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff given the agreed-upon timetable.

The plaintiff brought an omnibus motion to implement a Court of Appeal judgment in favour of a class of over 35,000 retirees regarding pension indexation.

The court approved the implementation methodology, which provides an estimated $103 million present value recovery to the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $10 million, a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, and the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

Finally, relying on section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, the court eliminated the right of class members to opt out, finding that the declaratory nature of the judgment and the 100% recovery made an opt-out right unnecessary and potentially unjust.

The plaintiffs brought motions for approval of a settlement, class counsel fees, and representative plaintiff honoraria in two class actions concerning defective Takata airbags installed in Mazda, Subaru, and Toyota vehicles.

The settlement provides for an outreach program, out-of-pocket expenses reimbursement, and a customer support program.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of up to $5,850,000 and an honorarium of up to $19,167 to be split among the representative plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion to amend the class definition in a certified data breach class action.

They sought to narrow the class to persons who had active leases or loans with Nissan during a specific period, based on evidence that the stolen data sample only contained information from that timeframe.

They also sought to exclude corporate customers.

The court granted the motion to amend the timeframe, finding it supported by the evidence, but declined to exclude corporate customers at this stage, holding that the issue of whether corporations can claim intrusion upon seclusion should be determined as a separate question of law.

Following a partially successful certification motion in a privacy breach class action, the plaintiffs sought costs of $532,162.17.

The court found the requested amount excessive and unreasonable due to over-litigating, over-staffing, and over-docketing.

Noting the plaintiffs' mixed success and last-minute changes to their case that prejudiced the defendants, the court reduced a reasonable starting point of $160,000 by half, awarding the plaintiffs $80,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Nissan following a data breach where an unknown employee accessed and stole the personal information of thousands of customers, demanding a ransom.

The court found that the plaintiffs satisfied the certification requirements under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

The court certified common issues relating to vicarious liability for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, aggregate damages, and punitive damages, while narrowing the proposed class definition.

A corn grower who neither purchased nor planted genetically modified corn seed brought a proposed class action against the seed manufacturer for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the Competition Act.

The manufacturer had commercialized the seed in North America before obtaining approval in China.

The seed's traits commingled with all North American corn, causing China to ban all North American corn imports, resulting in a market glut and price collapse.

The motion judge struck all claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the negligence claim for premature commercialization while upholding dismissal of the misrepresentation and Competition Act claims.

The representative plaintiffs in a class action brought a motion for approval of their retainer agreements, class counsel's fees and disbursements of $175,000, and a $500 honorarium for each representative plaintiff.

The court found the honorarium modest and appropriate.

The court also approved the contingency retainer agreements under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found the requested fees to be fair and reasonable given the results achieved, the risks undertaken, and the fact that the defendants agreed to pay the fees.

The representative plaintiffs sought approval of a settlement in a class action against General Motors regarding incorrect fuel economy stickers on certain 2016 model year vehicles.

The settlement provided class members with either a cash payment equivalent to a prior voluntary compensation program or a $2,000 voucher for a new vehicle.

The court found the settlement, negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved it along with class counsel fees of $175,000.

The plaintiff, a commercial corn grower, brought a proposed class action against the defendants, manufacturers of genetically modified corn seeds (Agrisure), alleging negligence and breach of the Competition Act.

The plaintiff claimed that North American corn prices fell due to China's rejection of corn shipments containing unapproved Agrisure, causing economic loss to non-Agrisure farmers.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing no duty of care existed for pure economic loss.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the claim was framed in misrepresentation, the plaintiff's reliance on the defendants' alleged undertaking not to introduce Agrisure without global approvals was unreasonable, as commingling was inevitable and preventing it would require withholding the product from the domestic market, which had regulatory approval.

The court also noted the risk of indeterminate liability and the illogical elevation of foreign approvals over domestic ones.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action against the manufacturers of Cook IVC filters, alleging negligent design and failure to warn of risks associated with the medical devices.

The court dismissed the certification motion.

While the plaintiffs satisfied the identifiable class and representative plaintiff criteria, and pleaded a valid cause of action for failure to warn, they failed to plead a valid cause of action for design negligence.

Crucially, the court found no 'some basis in fact' for the existence of any common issues regarding either design defect or duty to warn, as the evidence did not identify a specific design defect or inadequacy in the warnings provided to physicians.

Consequently, the preferable procedure criterion was also not met.

This is a proposed class action seeking certification against Samsung Electronics Canada Inc. regarding allegedly defective Galaxy Note7, S7, and S7 Edge smartphones.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation, breach of consumer protection and sale of goods acts, negligence, unjust enrichment, and waiver of tort, claiming inadequate compensation for losses from a recall program.

The court dismissed the motion for certification, finding that the misrepresentation and statutory claims lacked contractual privity between the manufacturer and consumers, and were inadequately pleaded.

Claims for data loss and pain and suffering were deemed highly individualized, lacking commonality.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's expert failed to establish a credible methodology for class-wide damages.

The court concluded that a class action was not the preferable procedure, given Samsung's voluntary compensation program which addressed access to justice and behaviour modification concerns.