E.M. Morgan

The plaintiff brought a class action alleging that the defendant insurer wrongfully deprived insureds of trip cancellation benefits by offering non-monetary compensation such as credits or vouchers.

On consent, the court certified a single threshold common issue regarding the interpretation of the travel insurance policy and dismissed the claim against the parent bank.

The court found that certifying a single threshold common issue, with the possibility of further common issues later, was an efficient procedure akin to a Rule 21 motion.

The plaintiff sued the provincial government after a moratorium on offshore wind projects was announced on the exact day the plaintiff's project financing was set to close.

The plaintiff alleged the government intentionally timed the announcement to deprive it of litigation resources, and further claimed spoliation of evidence due to the government's deletion of senior staff emails.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no evidence the government knew of the financing timing and concluding the email destruction, while improper, was a routine practice not aimed at this specific litigation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a $266,000 settlement in a securities class action, along with approval of class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The court approved the settlement, noting that the net funds would be distributed cy-près to the Class Action Clinic at the University of Windsor because administration costs would exceed available funds.

The court also approved a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff and $146,000 in fees and disbursements for class counsel.

The defendant union requested that the claim against it be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the statement of claim contained no legally cognizable cause of action against the union, as the allegations were directed almost entirely at the employer.

The court dismissed the claim against the union but granted the plaintiff liberty to take steps to amend the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sought early production of an investigation report from the defendants to determine whether there was an evidentiary basis to serve two John Doe defendants located in Mexico.

The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the normal discovery process under the Rules of Civil Procedure should be followed.

The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs could not compel early production to avoid the ordinary costs risks of litigation.

The plaintiffs were ordered to serve the remaining defendants within 60 days.

The plaintiffs in a class action against Kew Media Group Inc. and several individual defendants sought consent orders to streamline the litigation.

The corporate defendant was in insolvency proceedings with a stay in place.

The plaintiffs agreed to discontinue the action against five individual defendants, hold the case in abeyance against two others, and toll applicable limitation periods.

The court granted the consent orders for discontinuance, leave to proceed under the Securities Act, and certification under the Class Proceedings Act against the remaining individual defendants, finding the agreements made the case more efficient without adversely affecting class members.

The applicants, former franchisees, brought an application to enforce a settlement agreement requiring the respondent franchisor to pay $100,000.

The respondents withheld payment, arguing the applicants breached the agreement by continuing to use the franchise's store design and branding.

The court found that the applicants' use of generic open-concept shelving and flooring did not infringe on the franchisor's protected branding.

The court held that the respondents breached the settlement agreement and the duty of fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act by withholding the funds.

The application was granted and the respondents' counter-application was dismissed.

The applicant sought directions from the Superior Court after an Assessment Officer determined he lacked jurisdiction to conduct a solicitor-client assessment.

The order for assessment had been obtained from a registrar outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by section 3(b) of the Solicitors Act.

The court held that while statutory timelines in the Solicitors Act can be treated as flexible standards, the applicant's failure to cure the jurisdictional defect despite being alerted to it years earlier prejudiced the respondents.

The court confirmed the assessment procedure was a nullity and awarded costs to the self-represented respondents.

The plaintiff brought a class action against an anesthesiologist, a pain clinic, and its nursing staff following an outbreak of bacterial meningitis and epidural abscesses among patients who received epidural injections.

The court found that the anesthesiologist breached the standard of care and his fiduciary duties by failing to use proper aseptic techniques, failing to report and investigate infections, and misinforming patients about the risks.

The court drew an inference of causation linking the anesthesiologist's substandard infection prevention and control practices to the patients' infections.

The claims against the nursing staff were dismissed as there was no evidence they breached the standard of care.

The court also found the anesthesiologist's conduct warranted punitive damages.

The plaintiff brought an unsuccessful motion for an injunction to prevent a property sale.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the motion had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court agreed, finding the plaintiff's claim was purely monetary and the injunction was a misguided attempt at pre-judgment enforcement.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs but declined to award per diem delay costs, noting such losses must be pursued as a counterclaim rather than as costs.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $24,000 in all-inclusive costs.

Following their successful motion for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from terminating their franchise business, the plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $115,500.

The defendant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge or reduced by half.

The court rejected reserving costs, noting the action was at an early stage.

Noting the importance of the issues and the defendant's failure to provide its own costs outline for comparison, the court fixed costs payable to the plaintiffs at $95,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff moved for certification of a class action alleging that insurance sales agents, known as 'producers', were misclassified by the defendants as independent contractors rather than employees.

The defendants opposed certification, arguing that the proposed class lacked commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the current arrangement financially benefited most producers.

The court found that the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met, noting that the core issue of misclassification was common to the class and that a class action was preferable to individual claims or Ministry of Labour complaints.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for re-certification of a class action, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded as the motion passed several certification hurdles before failing on the representative plaintiff requirement.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument, noting that partial success on hurdles does not equate to a divided result.

However, recognizing the difficult circumstances faced by plaintiff's counsel, the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the fixed amount of $50,000.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff developer regarding a defaulted agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court noted the defendants pursued a defence and counterclaim identical to one recently dismissed by the Court of Appeal in a related case.

Despite this, the plaintiff only sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $49,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

At a case conference, the applicant landlord requested an interim order requiring the respondent commercial tenant and its indemnifiers to pay outstanding rental arrears and ongoing rent until the application hearing.

The court ordered the respondents to pay full monthly rent going forward, but declined to make an order regarding accumulated arrears as the respondents' counsel had just been retained and needed time to respond.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to schedule a pre-trial and set the matter down for trial.

The defendant objected, noting the plaintiff had just served an Amended Statement of Claim, which would require an amended defence and potentially further discoveries.

The court declined to schedule the pre-trial, directing the parties to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding amended pleadings and to move the matter forward without relying on judicial supervision unless necessary.

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 plaintiff purchased an auto parts business from two of the defendants and sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants established a competing business just outside the restricted radius and used a related company and former employees to solicit customers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were breached, failed to prove irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendants.

The plaintiff was terminated without cause from his position as a commissioned salesperson just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

He brought a motion for summary judgment seeking pay in lieu of notice, including base salary, commissions on pending deals, and bonus pool payments.

The court awarded a 10-month notice period, explicitly accounting for the pandemic's negative impact on his job search.

The court also awarded the plaintiff his commission on a major transaction that closed during the notice period, but declined to award commission on a transaction that remained pending after the notice period expired.

The plaintiffs, a franchisee and its principal, moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant franchisor from terminating their franchise agreement pending trial.

The franchisor had issued a notice of termination alleging numerous breaches of health and safety standards following intensive inspections.

The plaintiffs argued the franchisor breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing under the Arthur Wishart Act and common law by enforcing standards with unreasonable severity to appropriate the profitable business.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm in the potential destruction of the business, and the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiffs.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.