Eric Baum

In a complex construction litigation, the third and fourth parties brought a motion for satisfaction of undertakings and refusals, seeking documents prior to the execution of a settlement agreement on December 7, 2021.

They argued the settling parties reached an 'agreement in principle' earlier and failed to immediately disclose it, fundamentally altering the litigation landscape.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the requested documents were protected by settlement privilege, litigation privilege, and solicitor-client privilege, and that the obligation to disclose applies only to concluded agreements, not ongoing negotiations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a class action settlement and class counsel fees.

The class action arose from allegations that the defendants' dental clinic failed to follow proper infection prevention and control practices, exposing patients to communicable diseases.

The court approved the settlement, which provides compensation to eligible class members, and approved class counsel's initial fee request of $250,000, finding both to be fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class action for settlement purposes against a dental clinic and several dentists.

The action alleged negligence in infection control and prevention practices, exposing patients to communicable diseases.

The court found that the five-part test for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 was met.

The action was certified on consent for settlement purposes.

At a case conference, the parties presented a proposed settlement of the class action and sought approval for the Short Form and Long Form Notice to notify class members.

The court approved the proposed forms and means of notice, noting they were effectively the same as those used for the certification order.

A settlement approval hearing was scheduled for February 5, 2021.

Following certification of a class proceeding arising from the collapse of a shopping mall, the court determined the appropriate allocation of costs for the certification motion.

Most defendants did not oppose certification and several entered into settlement agreements regarding costs.

The court distinguished between baseline costs that would have been incurred even if certification had proceeded on consent and additional costs caused by defendants who opposed certification.

The judge concluded that $140,000 represented additional costs attributable to opposition and allocated remaining unpaid costs primarily to the provincial government, whose extensive submissions challenged multiple certification criteria.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 against one defendant and $60,000 against the provincial government, with other amounts accounted for through settlements.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action following the collapse of the Algo Centre Mall roof in Elliot Lake, which killed two people and injured dozens.

The proposed class included occupants, tenants, and employees of the mall.

The defendants included the mall owners, builders, engineers, and the Province of Ontario.

The Province opposed certification, arguing it owed no private law duty of care for negligent inspection.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a valid cause of action for negligent inspection against the Province and that all five prerequisites for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.